# Talk:Orkney

As hard as it might be for people to imagine, the existence of Orkney as fundamentally part of Scotland is about to become incredibly politicised due to the Scottish independence debate. I strongly advocate locking the article until well after the terms of separation are settled to avoid Wikipedia being used as a political football.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.57.163 (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC) 

I've always found it difficult to follow trends from a column of numbers, and I'm probably not the only one. So I made a graph and added it to §Overview of population trends.
I couldn't figure out how to get it placed nicely in wikicode, or in the wikitable that the numbers are already in, so I used plain HTML, which seems to have worked properly. --Thnidu (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Orkney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150713011232/http://getamap.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/getamap/frames.htm to http://getamap.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/getamap/frames.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140528053110/http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/INFD-6UFE3Y to http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/INFD-6UFE3Y
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130729230722/http://www.snptacticalvoting.com/2009/10/untouchable-orkney-shetland-isles.html to http://www.snptacticalvoting.com/2009/10/untouchable-orkney-shetland-isles.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140304095849/http://www.alba.org.uk/scot99constit/h05.html to http://www.alba.org.uk/scot99constit/h05.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111005153021/http://www.ensg.gov.uk/assets/kel003110000.pdf to http://www.ensg.gov.uk/assets/kel003110000.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120911225847/http://www.clackson.com:80/tartan/sanday-tartan.htm to http://www.clackson.com/tartan/sanday-tartan.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Watch hereLPF plod (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

No justification has ever been made for having a Scots Gaelic translation for Orkney placed in a prominent position on English language wiki page for Orkney. This gives a misleading impression that Scots Gaelic has had significant presence in Orkney and is spoken in Orkney.
Original addition: (cur | prev) 07:48, 18 March 2007‎ Ronline (talk | contribs)‎ . . (37,958 bytes) (+14)‎ . . (added official gaelic name) (undo)
Several times this edit has been removed (with justification) by a number of users and several times it has been re-instated without justification.
The Norse translation is a direct etymological precursor of the current name and therefore is deserving of the prominent position. This also reflects the Norse heritage of the Islands.
I don't really want to have a continual edit battle over this point but I do believe common sense should prevail rather than ideology. There is no evidence that Arcaibh has ever been used within or out-with Orkney in its early history. The etymology section gives a clear picture of the current name and other names used prior to the Norse settlement (which does not include Arcaibh, a modern Scots Gaelic interpretation).
There is an ideal wikipedia site for a modern Scots Gaelic translation of the name Orkney and that is the Scots Gaelic wikipedia page for Orkney. Located here https://gd.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcaibh.
The proposal is to remove Arcaibh from the prominent position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.198.190.54 (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2018‎ (UTC)

Hi, user above does seem to have a point. This seems more appropriate for the other language Wiki page recommended. It is unclear what motivation Dr Chris Williams of the Glasgow University has as to why he wishes to force the issue. Looking at previous IP addresses it seems that the other unsigned additions of this have been made from a computer located at the University of Glasgow. This seems very strange. - David C, 3rd April 2018  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.253.192.31 (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree with Dr Chris Williams and the other users in adding the Gaelic name. Scotland is officially a bilingual country, even if Orkney as an area is not. Many other countries which are bilingual, for example English wikipedia articles relating to Canada prominently feature the French name for a predominantly English speaking part of the country. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia. In the name of consistency and respecting the bilingual nature of Scotland it is only right to include the Gaelic name. Cjduffy (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with motion to remove. Scotland is not the same as Canada. Canada has a significant percentage of people speaking French. In any case there are many places in Canada that only list an English name so the argument for consistency is debunked. Scots Gaelic name for Orkney has never been used by anyone to a significant degree. Scotland is not recognised as bilingual, it is recognised as multilingual with Gaelic being officially described as a minority language. There are far more speakers of Scots than Scots Gaelic. Using the same flawed logic as before, we should also have the Scots names too. It doesn't seem right to have a minority language being imposed on place names where it was never spoken. It smacks of cultural whitewash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.253.234.111 (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Gaelic is not a minority language. It is a language legally recognised in Scotland as enjoying equal status with English as of 2005.
And if you want to talk about cultural whitewash, let's talk about you whitewashing the Norse-Gaelic cultural interface. First, say hello to Harald Maddadsson, Jarl of Orkney... or, as he might have been called in his father the Mormaer of Atholl's Gaelic-speaking court, Aralt mac Mataid, Mormaer of Innse Orc. And Malise V, Earl of Strathearn... and Orkney. A Gael.
The Sinclairs were a clan with very close connections to northern Scotland. Their lands in Caithness at this same time were becoming increasingly Gaelic speaking. There is no reason to believe none of them were capable of Gaelic speech either.
You are erasing a rich history of Gaelic and Norse cultural interface for your hatred of Gaelic. And that bigotry belongs in neither Wikipedia nor Scotland. 80.2.184.162 (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I would like to offer some clarifications to the most recent user supporting the motion to remove. Indeed areas of Canada have far more French speakers but sticking with the example I gave of British Columbia, only 1.4% of people are listed as native French Speakers, so it very much is a minority language there but yet it is still prominently listed because the French is an officially recognised name with the same status as the English. This is the case with Gaelic in Scotland as per the 2005 legislation and therefore it should be included. As for other articles not providing a French name in the case of Canada this is because there is not a French name to use in the first instance in almost all cases (checking the French wikipedia entry will confirm this).
To draw on other examples across Wikipedia of Gaelic being included prominently on the article one only need look at the entries for railway stations in Scotland, they all prominently include the Gaelic despite some servicing areas with little or no Gaelic speakers. This is a matter of respecting that the languages have equal standing in Scotland regardless of how widely spoken they are.
On your point about Scots that is a debate for another perhaps for another time, but I must say that the logic isn't flawed, although I don't believe that there is a Scots translation if there is it should be included as Scots is also recognised as official language of Scotland. This comes back to the earlier point made about the existence or otherwise of a translation. Finally I have to dispute your claim of a cultural whitewash, firstly a whitewash means to cover or hide information adding a language that is a small part of the history of Orkney does not do anything to detract from the rest of its culture, and secondly as the above user makes clear in rather strong terms there is Gaelic history in Orkney and that to omit that surely would be the true whitewash. Cjduffy (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I think we need to cool the emotions here. I don't think any of the users here have a hatred towards Gaelic and I think an apology is in order if any offence has been caused. It is understood that Gaelic has suffered from renaming crimes quite badly in the past and I personally support the reinstatement of the use of historically relevant place names throughout Scotland - which I concede cover a great deal of names on the Scottish Mainland. However, and this is not meant to cause offence, the point still stands that no history is being erased as there is no Gaelic history in Orkney as a significant cultural influence. To include the Gaelic title is to say that Gaelic is historically significant within the district. Which it is not. Wikipedia is supposed to give readers a truthful impression of the subject matter. As mentioned earlier, including the Scots Gaelic name in such a position is misleading as it gives newcomers to the topic an impression that the Gaelic name is somehow relevant historically or etymologically. The Gaelic name is a new incarnation and therefore based on all that has been said, I maintain that is should be respectfully moved to a less prominent position.
However, as a peace offering, may it be suggested that it is described in an 'other names' table within the etymology section. It would be very informative, and interesting to have a table showing the many names, their period of use and origin. This would give credit that there is strong Gaelic culture neighbouring Orkney and Caithness that named the isles independently but also give a clear picture on thier relevance.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.255.149.119 (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
It would be very helpful if editors stopped edit warring about this issue and (as some are doing) attempted to reach some sort of consensus. Secondly, I suggest that all concerned read MOS:FORLANG. Ben MacDui 10:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I have been to Orkney many times over the last 30 years. I also have family there. There are no dual language signs and everyone that I have spoken to over the years is adamant that Gaelic is not part of thier culture. I agree to exclude the Gaelic translation as it conveys something that isn't accurate. Having it this way will represent the local signage as well as local and national government literature.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.252.129.132 (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC) 
On balance, I would tend to side with excluding it. In Galway we have dual language signs in Irish and English because it's direct part of our heritage and it definitely seems that that doesn't apply to the Isles of Orkney. I think the Wiki page needs to reflect that. We need to respect the individuality of places rather than overlooking the truthful variety that exists.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.203.12.3 (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC) 
Interesting debate. As an outsider and non involved editor I see it like this. Orkney is administered as part of Scotland and Gaelic has the status of a minority language in Scotland. Therefore a resident of Scotland who speaks Gaelic should expect to see the Gaelic name for Orkney mentioned. However, there is an argument that Orkney never had a Gaelic culture and went straight from Pictish to Norse reinforced by their names for the islands developing into the current name Orkney. Therfore I feel those names should be mentioned too despite the fact that neither language has any status in Scotland and are both dead. As a comparision look at how wikipedia handles cities in Eastern Europe like Lviv and Breslau. No point in editing warring - you will never all agree to one being mentioned and not the others Lyndaship (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


### English-Language Wikipedia is international, not Scottish
I'm finding the argument for including Gaelic names to be quite odd. Wikipedia is an international site, not a Scottish one. I can see no reason why Gaelic should be included in the English-language wiki just because the article is about somewhere in Scotland, and Gaelic is an official language of Scotland. English-language Wikipedia appears in English, and in countries where Gaelic isn't an official language.
On an English-language wiki, I'd rather see the names in English, and the names local people used in their own languages. If there is no local significance, I wouldn't want to see the names in French, German, Japanese, or Gaelic. These languages don't help my understanding of the Orkney names or Orkney history.
On wikipedia.scotland I'd absolutely expect to see names in English, Scots, Gaelic, and relevant local languages. On wikipedia.canada, I'd expect English, French, and relevant local languages. On wikipedia.gaelic-language wiki, I'd expect to see names in Gaelic and relevant local languages - possibly not in English, probably not in Scots (and almost certainly not in French, German, or Japanese).
I am from Australia, where we don't have any official languages (although English is the de facto language). Can I demand that English-language Wikipedia pages about Australia be written in "no" language, because we don't have an official one? No, because it's an English-language wiki, not an Australian "official language" one.
In short: A Wikipedia wiki is defined first by language, not by political entity. It is not up to a political entity to dictate which of its official languages should also be included. If the political entity wants to do that, they can instead create a wiki defined as belonging to that entity.
Disclaimers: I speak only English. I am a cartographer by profession, and do know that place-names are some of the best preservers of replaced languages, especially river names. If there are traces of pre-Norse languages in Orkney place names, I'd really like to see this, and if they are Pictish, and Pictish is related to Gaelic, then I'd like to see the modern Gaelic too, as a comparison. But I don't want to see a swarm of unrelated Gaelic names. I would also like to see a translation table, but this should be found on another page, maybe on wikipedia.scotland. 124.171.201.157 (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree. I live in Orkney and find it perplexing to have the Gaelic name in a prominent position. I have never met one Gaelic person from Orkney.
Etymology references are fine in the right section but unrelated languages are not.
Surely wikipedia should reflect reality and not be used as a political tool?
How can we change the table? ULoXer (talk) 07:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Shetland#Conflicting information (Christian I of Norway) for an apparent contradiction between the two articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The Picts are a historical riddle. How to assert they spoke Brythonic? --Manfariel (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Have you looked at the Pictish language article? Mikenorton (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

In the article introduction, a statement on the islands reads: 
'The climate is mild...'
Later, in the 'Absorbed by Scotland' section, we read:
'The harsh climate of Orkney and the Orcadian reputation...'
Then later in 'Climate' appears:
'Orkney has a cool temperate climate that is remarkably mild and steady for such a northerly latitude...'  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobotBoy66 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 

Well you make a good point. Perhaps different editors have different experiences of climate. I think "a cool temperate climate that is remarkably mild and steady for such a northerly latitude..." is a reasonable description from the perpective of say Finland, but I can't imagine too many visitors from the tropics thinking that the winters were anything less than harsh. However, that is no excuse for inconsistency & I'll have a go at fixing this. Ben MacDui 10:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
It's worth noting that the harsh climate refers to the 17th century, which was during the Little Ice Age climate minimum, so that may explain it. Mikenorton (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
"Harsh weather" often refers to wind. +1°C and hard wind is generally not so nice.--BIL (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I’m guessing the qualifier in one of the quotes “for such a northerly latitude” probably is the reason. It’s relatively mild for that latitude , which is still harsh!DeCausa (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Just seen Edit which fixes it along these lines. DeCausa (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

This article was first written getting on for 20 years ago. What does 'Today' mean in this context, and why is the page still a GA?  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I read “today” as the day the reader reads it, whenever that happens to be. I would assume most others would read it the same way as WP is a constantly edited digital, not paper, encyclopaedia. But I guess your point is that it is unclear. There is probably a better way of expressing it but at the two points were the term is used any alternative would make little difference. (St Magnus has been a dominating feature of Kirkwall for the last 700 years. I don’t see that changing any time soon but if it were to, someone, no doubt, would update the sentence.) I don’t know anything about the article’s history so can’t comment on “why is the page still a GA”. DeCausa (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't have anything to add to  DeCausa's comments re 'today'. As for its GA status at a very quick glance I'd say some of the Norse history could maybe emphasise the nature of the primary sources, the tiny 'Demographics' section is very questionable and the population trends section does not look great. Suggestions welcome of course. Ben MacDui 16:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The article leaves out the obvious etymology — from Latin orcus which spawned the modern word orc. Is there a reason that was dismissed out of hand?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

”Dismissed out of hand” suggests it was previously discussed. I don’t think it was. The reason why it wasn’t previously discussed is probably because no reliable source has put it forward. The reason why no reliable source has put it forward is probably because it’s baseless. DeCausa (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I read the article which I found useful. I made some fixes and improvements. I also reorganized text and images. I have some comments.
1. The introducing paragraph in the etymology section is not very elegant. It also makes references to Mela and Pliny that should be placed in the intro at the right time in the right sequence rather than being mentioned towards the end of the introductory passage.
2. In the section about the absorption of Orkney by Scotland I see two paragraphs that talk about the 17th century (which I inverted since one spans into the 19th century with "1830" so it should be the second in the sequence). I suppose the two paragraphs could be fused into a single paragraph.
3. The table with the historical population shows an increment of 1.04% of the population between 2001 and 2011. The math does not add up.
4. The section that says "The Scottish National Party chose not to contest the seat to give the movement a "free run". Their candidate, John Goodlad, came 4th with 3,095 votes, 14.5% of those cast, but the experiment has not been repeated." does not clearly explain what's the issue and it should be rephrased to do so. As a reader who is not familiar with local politics it's hard to understand and interpret the passage.
5. The article mentions that there are at least three tartans for Orkney and one of them is specifically for Sanday. It would be nice to add an image of each one of them.
ICE77 (talk) 06:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I see this topic has reared its head again. As far as I can see the use of "The Orkneys" is not used by modern authorities (by which I mean those such as the Ordnance Survey, the Royal Mail, Haswell-Smith (2004), Thomson (2008), Omand (2003), the local authority et.c) but rather in old sources such as the one dated 1883 in the current lead section, "The Orkneys and Schetland" in Blaeu's Atlas Novus of 1654, or in relatively non-authoritative texts. To quote one overview of this topic "'The Orkneys' is now, perhaps thankfully, out of fashion...". I shall have a go at modifying the current version asap. Ben MacDui 16:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ben MacDui: "Orkeny Islands" is used by the OS for both the island group and council area but the lieutenancy area is just "Orkney". I agree the plural form isn't correct though I'd ask if this should be moved to "Orkney Islands" though it was discussed back in 2018. Crouch, Swale (talk)  17:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Are the BBC[9] Time Out[10] or Politico[11] archaic? Of course, recent WP:RS use it. No one's saying predominant use isn't Orkney but saying recent RS don't use it all just isn't true. This is only an altname after all. I don't see what the problem is. DeCausa (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't call Winter Watch or Time Out 'authorities' on this subject myself. For whatever reason it is conisdered to be "wrong" in much the same way that we don't refer to "The Shetlands". It wouldn't be hard to find references to "Dublin City" or "London Town" which are also only altnames but they don't get prominence on the relevant articles. I could add a longer note about this. Ben MacDui 20:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
"Authorities"? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Altnames are simply that - alternative names. They don't have to be 'authoritative'. It seems to me that you think a name being "wrong" in some sense means it can't be an altname. That's just not the case. "Holland" is "wrong" but it doesn't stop it being an altname for The Netherlands. All that needs to be established is usage in RS - which I have shown. (Not sure why you refer to Winter watch - it's the BBC that publishes that webpage.) Here's more: The Spectator[12], The Times[13], and The Guardian.[14] Btw, I see no reason why "The Shetlands" shouldn't be an altname - The Telegraph has this headline a couple of weeks ago: "Britain to join space race in 2024 with rockets taking off from the Shetlands"[15]. Excluding The Orkneys, or The Shetlands as altnames seems to fly in the face of real world usage for the sake of WP:RGW. DeCausa (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
By “authorities” I mean people who are familiar with the topic and write extensively about it as opposed to copy editors and journalists who probably couldn’t find the place on a map. If you want to use the BBC as evidence then a better bet would be actual news articles about Orkney such as [16] [17] [18] [19].They don’t use this altname because they know if they did they would receive complaints – as indeed do we. Wikipedia has a duty not to perpetuate error as opposed to blindly repeating it. For example, although it is easy to find RS mentions of e.g. "The King of England" we don't embolden this word as an altname for the UK. Instead we have a sentence buried under "Etymology and terminology" that says "The word England is occasionally used incorrectly to refer to the United Kingdom as a whole, a mistake principally made by people from outside the UK." Something along those lines could be added here although the wording would have to be chosen carefully. Ben MacDui 13:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
That's not comparable. "King of England" is factually wrong - wrong realm. "Orkneys" is a style which is deprecated, particularly by its inhabitants, because of the implications it carries not because it is "factually" incorrect (other than it is not accepted as the legitimate name). But even so, we have the Holland/Netherlands example I already gave.   And of course the BBC usually use Orkney - if that were not the case this wouldn't be a discussion about the altname, it would be a WP:COMMONNAME discussion about the article title. And that's the point - you're using COMMONNAME arguments. But that's not relevant to altname. No one's saying that Orkney isn't predominant. The question is: is "Orkneys" still out there in the RS as an alternative name? And iI've given 6 instances from the RS showing quite clearly that it is. DeCausa (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I am struggling to understand what the real difference between these two examples is. King of England is deprectated/wrong although some RS's continue to use it. Orkneys is deprecated but the same applies. I've added a note to the etymology section per the UK article. Ben MacDui 18:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
As someone who lives in Orkney, the term "The Orkneys" is mostly used by folks who've never been here before, usually to refer to each and all of the islands as The Orkneys, which is where the plural comes from. Forget the etymologies of England or The Netherlands, they're unrelated. And yes, it is enormously deprecated by the folks that live here. Most folk see it as an ignorant or uneducated way of talking about the islands, as there's only one Orkney in the Northern Hemisphere. DaftTobacconist (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I suspect not all citizens of Las Vegas are totally delighted with the name Sin City but nevertheless there it is as an altname in its Wikipedia article. In Wikipedia altnames are not determined (only) by use by the educated, informed or inhabitants. DeCausa (talk) 06:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree, it's minor point but it should be correct (Orkney) and not use the slang name. ULoXer (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, Ben MacDui, but it's utterly absurd to claim that "the Orkneys" is "archaic". The fact that multiple present-day RS's refer to the islands under this name should squash this notion immediately. "Ceylon" is archaic; "Formosa" is archaic; "the Orkneys" is not archaic. Orcadians dislike the term, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean it isn't used and understood in the wider world. Zacwill (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Since you expressed some doubts about the reliability of the sources DeCausa adduced above, note that the Encyclopaedia Britannica uses both the singular and plural forms. Zacwill (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Happy to discuss alternative wording of course - perhaps "old-fashioned" or "deprectaed" etc.? The Brittanica article's history is not clear but it may have been written by an historian writing about Norway 24 years ago. Recent books about Orkney, or which include the subject at length, but which have "Orkney" rather than "Orkneys" in their index and (afaik) do not use the latter for reasons that I think are obvious to anyone interested in the subject in a serious manner:
Omand, Donald (ed.) (2003) The Orkney Book. Edinburgh. Birlinn. ISBN 1-84158-254-9
Thompson, William P.L. (2008) The New History of Orkney. Edinburgh. Birlinn. ISBN 978-1-84158-696-0
Gillen, Con (2003) Geology and landscapes of Scotland. Harpenden. Terra Publishing.
McKirdy, Alan; Gordon, John; Crofts, Roger (2007) Land of Mountain and Flood: The Geology and Landforms of Scotland. Edinburgh. Birlinn. ISBN 978-1-84158-357-0
Woolf, Alex (2007) From Pictland to Alba, 789–1070. Edinburgh. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-0-7486-1234-5
Fraser, James E. (2009) From Caledonia to Pictland: Scotland to 795. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-0-7486-1232-1
The list is quite long. Ben MacDui 08:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Again, no one is denying that "Orkney" is by far the predominant name. I don't think listing the strong RS that supports that changes anything. The point that's being made is that there is still residual and current use of "Orkneys" making it an alternative - undoubtedly "lesser" in many ways but still out there and current. I would suggest "Orkney... , also known as the Orkney Islands or, the often deprecated, Orkneys..."DeCausa (talk) 08:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the issue needs to be addressed in the opening sentence. There's already a paragraph on it in the Etymology section. The lead should simply list the common name and altnames as normal. Zacwill (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I'd be content with something along the lines of DeCausa's suggestion - perhaps  "Orkney... , also known as the Orkney Islands (or the often deprecated Orkneys)..." or better still "Orkney... , also known as the Orkney Islands (or the often deprecated Orkneys)..." - & although I suspect this may result in fairly frequent reversions by passing readers I'd be willing to give it a try. I am strongly opposed to simply listing it - if we do so we perpetuate the use of a widely deprecated form. Ben MacDui 17:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure they would revert it as puts in highlights that it is deprecated which (if you are of that mindset is no bad thing to highlight). As you yourself headed this thread "Orkneys (again)" I think not putting it on that footing is as likely to attract attention from passing readers. I'm going to WP:BEBOLD and add it and see how it goes!. DeCausa (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Would we really be "perpetuating the use of a widely deprecated form" by simply noting that the islands are also known as the Orkneys? The article is titled "Orkney", it uses "Orkney" throughout, and as I just said, it already includes a paragraph noting that the plural is now becoming unfashionable. Also, I'm not sure if "also known as the often deprecated Orkneys" even makes sense. Zacwill (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
@DeCausa: I see that you've decided to prove your own point by performing one of the "drive bys" you were referring to. Zacwill (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand what's meant by a driveby edit. It usually refers to someone who does not edit an article but, after reading it, makes a sole edit out of the blue without discussion. They are otherwise uninvolved in the article's development. See WP:DRIVEBYTAG by analogy. I, on the otherhand, have edited this article since (apparently, after checking) 2019 plus made a number of posts to this talk page over a similar period. The edit in question, as you well know, was restoring text discussed in this thread. In no way, can it be described as driveby and am puzzled why you would say that. Additionally, the driveby I was referring to was removing "Orkneys" entirely. Again, that's not what I did. DeCausa (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Your stated reason for reverting my edit was that the wording I chose was likely to attract meddling. Since I made the edit, no one has touched the article but you. It was unjust of me to describe your reversion as a "drive by", but is it not fair to say that you practically fulfilled your own prediction? Zacwill (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
I didn't say "meddling" and clearly that's not what I meant. I'm referring to IPs coming by and deleting "the Orkneys" because they object to its use. I didn't delete "the Orkneys" I deleted your addition which would have resulted in that outcome. So, no it is untrue, and in fact the exact opposite, of "fulfilling my own prediction". Given no one else has supported your position in this thread, I find your attitude quite problematic. DeCausa (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
It is pure speculation on your part that my edit would have resulted in that outcome. The same goes for your claim that readers don't pay any attention to notes. It's true that no one has supported my position, but then only three people have been actively involved in this discussion. The current wording is supported by a consensus of two. Zacwill (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
And yours by a consensus of one! DeCausa (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps I could take a leaf out of your book and invent a horde of IP editors to back me up. Zacwill (talk) 11:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Look enough with the snide. That was a perfectly reasonable revert. It's unclear why you are reacting so petulantly. What you added wasn't an improvement in my opinion. Get over it - or get others to agree with you. DeCausa (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I am reacting "petulantly" because the current opening sentence is ridiculous and you are obstructing efforts to change it by appealing to users who don't exist. I moved the word "deprecated" to a note rather than removing it altogether because I thought that this would be an acceptable compromise, but evidently I was wrong. Zacwill (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
That's right you were. Evidently you have no clue or understanding of the history of this: [20], [21], [22], [23] etc passim DeCausa (talk) 11:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Four edits over the space of a year, two of them by the same user... Clearly we have no choice but to deface the article in order to appease the IPs. Zacwill (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
The phrase "or, the often deprecated, Orkneys" is a very clumsy form of wording - at first glance may give the impression that the islands themselves are somehow deprecated rather than one form of the name. I have had a go at a rewording which covers the same point (which I agree is worth a mention in the lead) but using a separate sentence for clarity and plain English. Stortford (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for showing some common sense. Zacwill (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Perfect. DeCausa (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The article uses BC and AD instead of the preferred BCE and CE. MAMathison (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

They're not "preferred". See MOS:ERA. DeCausa (talk) 09:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Orkney residents may not like the term "The Orkneys". But it is simply false to claim that it is "considered incorrect". It remains in common use, as one can easily see. 131.251.8.15 (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took another look and noticed lots of uncited statements, including two sub-sections in the "Islands" section. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

In fact, there's no citations at all in the 3 sub-sections of the Islands section. But, strangely, that was true of the version that passed GA. Not sure of the rigour of the original review. Probably should go to GAR. DeCausa (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
@DeCausa: Would you be interested in bringing this to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)


### Orkney