Talk:Ring of Brodgar

	Scottish islands portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands in Scotland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Scottish IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish IslandsTemplate:WikiProject Scottish IslandsScottish Islands articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

World Heritage Sites

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage Sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Norse

Norse in my case is swedish.

Norse for stone = sten
Norse for isthmus = näs (or næs). (the vowel "ä" (or "æ") sounds wery much like a long "e" like in "cheers").
Stenness (Stennäs) = Stone(s) isthmus.

// Solkoll 11:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What are you suggesting? That Stenness refers to a stone isthmus, or stones on an isthmus, or something else entirely? It doesn't seem very.. radical :P I wonder whether it's good to include more details, such as the graffiti on the stones, those struck by lightning, etc?

Fish-Face 21:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting. It sounds like a likely derivation for Stenness indeed. Thorf 05:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dating

If this monument is dated to 2500BC, it is surely contemporary with, and not pre-dating Stonehenge? --Grumpy444grumpy 15:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've always heard that the Ring of Brodgar dates from 2700 BC. I'm not sure what the source is for the 2500 BC figure quoted here - possibly Sigurd Towrie's Orkneyjar site, which mentions that the site has never actually been dated, but the stones are assumed to have been erected between 2500 and 2000 BC. Thorf 05:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of British Isles

This article can still utilise the term British Isles and remain accurate. I suggest the refereces are left as per Bardcom's edit, but we can also maintain the disputed term. At the risk of 3RR I'll revert again and hopefully other editors will offer an opinion. 86.27.230.177 (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As some of are aware, Bardcom is trying to remove the term 'British Isles' from Wikipedia. In some circumstances remvoval of the term is justified, but not in all circumstances. It seems appropriate here.Doug Weller (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil and no ad hominen attacks like the one above. --Bardcom (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how the hell is the above an "ad hominem attack"? This is purely about your on-wiki activity. No remarks on your intelligence, your looks or your mother were made. Address the issue. --dab (𒁳) 08:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised at your needlessly aggressive and admonitory tone. Please look again at the comment "Bardcom is trying to remove the term 'British Isles' from Wikipedia". A baseless accusation that is propagated by a number of editors, many of whom also attempt to paint me as a drooling anti-British Irish nationalist that unjustifiably and irrationally removed the term from Wikipedia. My edits are scrutinized by many editors, and while I don't have a perfect 100% record, my accuracy at identifying and correcting articles that use the term incorrectly is very high - at a guess about 95%+. Since most people assume good faith (as they should), when good editors start flinging baseless accusations like this around, other editors (and even admins) react. Look at your own knee-jerk and aggressive reaction as an example - which also fails to see the sneaky and underhanded method used to undermine my edits. So I say again, comment on the edits and not on the editor - which is exactly what was not done in this case - hence the warning. --Bardcom (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source I have just added which was already being used in the article says "the Brodgar ring is the third largest stone circle in the British Isles", therefore I expect no further censorship of this article. Ducks play football (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, good reference. --Bardcom (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much to be suprised about. As anyone can see, almost every last edit by User:Bardcom (for the month of April alone) has something to do with removing "British Isles" from articles, or battling in talkpages about the removal of the term "British Isles"--Celtus (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Offshore stone circle found?

Please see:

Talk:Loch of Stenness

Ta, --Mais oui! (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update Required

See this month's National Geographic. Clearly our interpretations of events and societies lost in time needs a periodic re-viewing.184.144.76.115 (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Video

Watch here LPF plod (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neolithic low roads?

The undefined term has been brought into question at:

Talk:Maeshowe#Definition of "low road".

--75.188.199.98 (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ring of Brodgar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090624055013/http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/ARCHway/toc.cfm?rcn=150&vol=34 to http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/ARCHway/toc.cfm?rcn=150&vol=34

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geological analysis of stones shows they 'point in the direction they have come from'

In this Episode 5, Orkney, of Secret Scotland, https://www.my5.tv/secret-scotland/season-1/episode-5 transmitted 8 March 2019 on Channel 5 in the UK, a guide (not sure if an official guide) said that the stones had been analysed an had been found to have come from various local places (within Orkney I seem to remember), and that they had been placed in the circle positions relating to the direction from which they had come (something like "pointing in the direction they had come from"). I have not been able to find any more info on this, and I am not sure that this source is good enough. FrankSier (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]