Talk:Glimps Holm

Requested move 14 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 07:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Glims Holm → Glimps Holm – Per the Ordnance Survey and Gazetteer for Scotland. "Glims Holm" gets 11,200 Ghits while "Glimps Holm" gets 11,400, not much in it but reliable sources as pointed out above include the "p". Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. The search data above is useless. Per WP:COMMONNAME, searches should be conducted of reliable sources, whereas a general google search is mostly blogs and personal websites and commercial pages and other unreliable sources.

Searching Gbooks (which has a much higher concentration of reliable sources), it's also important to follow through to the last page of the search results, because Google's initial estimates are usually exaggerated by at least one order of magnitude.

Gbooks gives me 107 "Glims Holm" and 81 "Glimps Holm"

JSTOR gives me 0 "Glims Holm" and 5 "Glims Holm"

So I evaluate the search data as inconclusive.

I was initially inclined to go with the Gazetteer for Scotland, but that wonderful project seems to have been underfunded until it appears to have stalled in about 2005. So i am unclear to what extent it can be regarded as scholarly.

I attach little weight to the English-based Ordnance survey when it comes to placenames outside England.

So the result is that I see no sources to justify a decision either way, which for me defaults to the status quo.

I could persuaded by scholarly books on local usage in Orkney, but I have not tried to identify any such sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: The sources and evidence below seem to weakly support this move, do you still oppose? not that you should generally oppose simply because you're unsure since if there is no consensus it will stay as is (particularly since the source for Orkney Islands Council uses the "p". Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Notifications: WikiProject Scottish Islands[1] and WikiProject Scotland[2]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: where sources are inconclusive between two or more titles, I will usually oppose a move. Per WP:TITLECHANGES, stability of titles is important, so don't move unless there is good reason to do so.

The evidence below seems to me to to be overall neutral. However, it prompted me to do more research, as a result of which I will change my !vote in my next post. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm uncertain about this one, and I'd like to see more evidence before deciding one way or the other. Personally, I have always known the island as "Glimps Holm", so I raised an eyebrow when I saw that Wikipedia had the article at "Glims Holm", but I realise my impression is largely based on what it says on the OS map, and as BrownHairedGirl points out above the Ordnance Survey cannot be taken as reliable for Scottish place names. Gazetteer for Scotland is a bit more trustworthy, but still not entirely so. Looking at the history of our article, I see it was created in 2007 by editor Finavon, whose initial edit summary makes it clear they were aware of the discrepancy with the OS name. This is a long-term trusted editor, so I feel they must have had some local knowledge or good reason to use the "Glims Holm" spelling. I note, however, that Orkney Islands Council uses "Glimps Holm" on this document (see page 11) and they really should know what they are talking about, so I don't know who to believe. --Deskford (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I have no local knowledge. Either way round we need a redirect. My copy of Haswell-Smith, Hamish (1996). Scottish Islands. Canongate. ISBN 0 86241 579 9. (and in his 2008 edition visible at Google preview) uses "Glims Holm" in the index and in its passing mention but in his list of Orkney islands by geographical position he has "Glimps Holm". It looks as if both are (reliably!) used. Thincat (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Sorry, no local knowledge either. The initial edit summary is simply the opening text of the article. I probably used Haswell-Smith and acknowledged that he differed from the OS. In the absence of another local source, Orkney Islands Council (above) is perhaps the most reliable.

[Edit] Admiralty Charts have Glimps Holm. Finavon (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• (changing my !vote) Support. Prompted by @Thincat's link above, I did a search of the Orkney Islands Council website: http://www.orkney.gov.uk/.

That gave me zero hits for "Glims Holm", but 19 hits for "Glimps Holm".

The local authority's exclusive use of one spelling seems to me a conslusive answer. @Finavon, what do you think? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support (I commented above). Glimps Holm seems overall the more usual. I'm surprised the council is consistent in its spelling. My council is very inconsistent with spelling River Ury! Thincat (talk) 08:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support (I commented above too). The evidence is mounting in favour of "Glimps Holm" as the more common spelling, and if that is consistently used by the council that gives it the stamp of authenticity. --Deskford (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support (comment above) We've not found a definitive source but the balance seems to support this small change. I did not have a strong reason for selecting one when creating the page. It is easy to see how a letter could have been addded or removed. Finavon (talk) 09:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.