This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Northern Ireland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland 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.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Wales Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. England Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. UK geography Low‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is a huge stretch... but the Q-Celtic form of Britain, Cruithne, can be made to read as CELT.n by trilling the R in Cruithne to L (as is done in Japanese) and hardening the TH into T, hence Cruithne = Cluitne ~ CELT.n... This may or may not have meaning.

I'm restoring my edit, as I feel the subsequent edit entirely removes the clarification I was introducing as to the usage of "Albion" in reference to Scotland, not simply to "Alba" doing so. And note that Gaelic is a redirect to an article about the whole sub-family, and hence isn't the most appropriate link in my judgement. (And gives too much prominance on the other hand to the Avalon speculation.) Alai 07:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there any Gaelic language in which Alba does not have the meaning given in the article? I believe the name was first applied to just part of Britain (Caledonia) in the 7th or 8th centrury Gaelic of Ulster. Laurel Bush 10:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC).

I don't believe so (on the first), though my Manx is not first class. :) Assuming this can be confirmed, an explicit list would IMO be clearer than a link to the Goidelic article. Alai 01:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Goidelic article is curiously named. Can't see any good reason for not calling it simply "Gaelic". Laurel Bush 09:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC).

Gaelic links now to a disambiguation page. Laurel Bush 09:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC).

references – there don't seem to be any to support the claim that the title Albion pre-dated Prydain or Pretan, and Alba for Scotland coming from Albion, I rather think Albion was a later name from Latin Alba = white, from the cliffs of dover, and Alba of scotland from Brea d'Albane from the snow covered peaks of that part of Pictland. anyway if there are no references and given the alternatives perhaps these things can be removed.213.106.124.3 (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the current edit reads "Albion (in Ptolemy Alouion), the most ancient name of the British Isles or Great Britain, though often used to refer specifically to England." I can't say I've ever come across Albion being used to refer to the British Isles rather than just Great Britain. I could be wrong, but is there a source for this? --Ryano 10:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I beleive Ptolemy, at least, saw Albion as just one of two main islands, Albion and Hibernia (Great Britain and Ireland). The article's use of "British Isles" seems quite inappropriate. Laurel Bush 11:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC).

The first part was right: Albion (actually, Alouíōnos = Alovionos ≈ Alobion) was his name for the island we know as Great Britain.

The second part was completely wrong: He considered Hibernia one of the "Britannic islands", for which "British Isles" is a perfectly adequate translation. — LlywelynII 12:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed:

Avalon may be simply another spelling of the same name.

It's rather implausible since "Avalon" means "Apple Island" and was believed to be in the west, to the west of Britain/"Albion".--4.247.140.25 15:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albion is also the name of small hamlet in Northern California which the Albion Nation is centred around, disambiguation required?

no... it is not required...

I believe this section is entirely misleading. While some have used it for England it is as incorrect as using 'Britain' for the same purpose, or the reverse. Everyone today is quite aware of its correct meaning and it is indeed often seen in Scotland.

I agree, 'often used...England' should be 'often used (incorrectly) ...England'

Followup: I have to disagree. "Everyone today is quite aware..." Not so. Remember this is something being read on the Internet by people of many backgrounds. The confusion of these terms as used today with their varying historical meanings is a source of great confusion, as I've noted below in my separate entry. Further, the meanings apparently intended in the entry as I found it today were blatantly incorrect. Ftjrwrites 18:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)ftjrwrites[reply]

That is the point, it is misleading to people who are from different backgrounds and who are not aware, they should be made aware that, although it does happen, the use of the term to describe England is technically incorrect. Although, it may have been reappropriated to refer solely to England, and the article should say this. It has also been reappropriated in Gaelic to refer to Scotland, an Irish (Gael) colony/settlement on the island of Albion, that's why they used it.

I've removed references to whether it refers 'mainly' to england or the UK as a whole, ive watched this page for quite some time now, and no attempt has been made to provide verification, as per Jim Wales directions tags of 'needs citation' shouldn't be used and instead i've edited out the sentence. If anyone wants to put it back in please make sure you have a source to justify your assertionsZaq12wsx (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to make me look dumb, but I was at first confused by the first line. I think it might be clearer for some people if it said "the island of Great Britain" instead of just "GB". Also, could we cite the fact that it is the most ancient name, and put that into context. It certainly isn't the name that God gave it, right? Or was someone around calling it Albion as soon as the floods separated it from the mainland. A similar statement is cited to Snyder, Christopher A. (2003). The Britons. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0-631-22260-X in the GB article. The thing is, a citation in the first line will look silly. What do you think? Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that, according to an old copy of the Guiness Book of Records (1970s?), that the oldest recorded name for the British Isles (or such) was something beginning with "Q" (as translated). I never considered "Albion" to be a _very_ ancient name. Sawatts (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just finsihed an ancient/medieval history degree and I have never heard/read anyone claim that Picts were not celts. "Celt" broadly refers to many groups. Please provide a SCHOLARLY citation for this fact. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that without a scholarly source, your claim is questionable.

I attempted a minor edit to resolve some of the anachronisms in the text, but they are so serious that a major revision is really in order. I am a fairly inexperienced Wikipedia editor, so I will leave to someone with more technical skill to check out what I'm going to point out and edit these into the actual entry. Feel free to make use of my remarks.

First, the term "Great Britain" cannot be attributable to the Picts, since the "Great" is a political product of the uniting of the English and Scottish thrones, a process that evolved during the Stuart monarchy in the 17th and 18th centuries A.D., long after the historic Picts has been subsumed by many other residents of modern Scotland. The "early Welsh" is another confusing reference. The Celtic residents of southern Albion, as encountered by the Romans and colonized during the period of Roman occupation, did not refer to themselves as "Welsh" or their land as "Wales." Those terms only came into usage much later after the Roman collapse and the Anglo-Saxon occupation of the southeastern portion of Albion had pushed the remaining Celtic kingdoms into the territory occupied by the modern Welsh. The earlier term for these various Celtic tribes would have been "Britons," a term that is used in places in the entry as if it has some other meaning. (I'm not sure the article was confusing on the issue of "Scotland," but it's probably worth pointing out that the term comes from the name of an Irish Celtic tribe that migrated to northern Albion during the early Middle Ages and mingled with other peoples, including the Picts, over time to create modern Scotland. However, until the late Middle Ages, the term "Scotia" or "Scotus" was often used to refer to Ireland or the Irish.) This confusion about the "Britons" may have been introduced in order to justify the supposedly Pictish origin of "Britain" given in the entry, which, the more I think about it, is not so much anachronistic as totally incorrect. As for the important issue of the Picts themselves, scholars are quite divided about the origins and language of these people and all encyclopedic entries ought to reflect this division of thought, perhaps giving some historiographic discussion of how the debate has played out and who seems to have the better case based on the latest evidence. Some of the theories about the Picts include the following: -- Indigenous pre-Celtic population of modern Scotland, with non-Celtic language. -- Mix of Celtic and indigenous people into the tribal groups encountered by the Romans, with language composed of some Celtic and some non-Celtic words. This is the most interesting possibility for the discussion in this entry because some have suggested that the indigenous people may have been the Alba, explaining why that name was attached to the northern portions of the island for so long. A related but slightly different idea is that the Picts were distinct from the Alba, but had lived alongside them. -- A Celtic tribe from Gaul that had relocated to Albion not long before the Romans arrived and would have spoken the continental form of Celtic. This claim is mingled with the idea of an indigenous "Alba" people in the wildly speculative but fascinating book The Farfarers: Before the Norse, by Canadian naturalist Farley Mowat. His purpose is to explore the possibility that some "Alba" had developed navigation techniques that allowed them to colonize Iceland and Greenland ahead of the Scandinavian occupations of the early Middle Ages. While the larger theory is not especially convincing, he offers this interesting alternative idea about the Picts and Alba that deserves mention in this context. Incidentally, the Wikipedia discussion of the Mowat and this book incorrectly describes this portion of his theory by saying he places the Picts among the Albans, which is not the case. He sees late Albans or Picts as having greatly intermingled and sharing a common identity after the ordeal of the Anglo-Saxon, Scotia, and Scandanavian invasions of their homelands. An excellent point in his discussion, whatever else one may think of his theories, is that the Picts/Albans never identified with the Celtic Britons and were generally in conflict with them. -- A non-Celtic tribe from the Baltic region, possibly speaking a Slavic, Baltic or Finnic tongue. This idea is based on the statements about Celtic origin given by largely unreliable medieval historians, such as Geoffrey of Monmouth. While modern pseudo-scholars (especially those in pursuit of Arthur!) may resurrect this claim out of deference for Geoffrey, it's never had much evidentiary or logical basis. Mowat suggests that Geoffrey was garbling an old tradition of continental origins for the Picts, and simply placed them too far to the east, but he uses this as part of his justification for assigning them Gallic origins as noted above.

There are probably other explanations for the Picts that have been put forward over the years, as they make up a mysterious people of unknown origin at the periphery of Europe, and thus a subject of much speculation. But these are the main ones you will encounter in the serious historical literature. What you will not generally encounter is the claim made in the entry that they are both non-Celtic and identical with the "Britons." The Britons WERE Celtic and WERE NOT the Picts. I've read widely in this subject matter and never previously encountered any confusion on this point. A good reference on this subject is J.P. Mallory's "In Search of the Indo-Europeans," which provides a thorough discussion of the linguistic, historical, archaeological and other support for the Celtic divisions in both the British Isles and on the continent, though it should be noted that even that more well-documented area of discussion is a subject of great academic debate and controversy.

There is an additional problem worth nothing with the entry's use of the term "early Welsh" to refer to the Celtic Britons of the Roman era. A significant number of the Britons' descendants do not have a Welsh identity. These include: -- Descendants of the Britons in modern southwestern Scotland. The early medieval period saw a number of Briton-dominated regimes governing this area, as happened in Wales, after surrounding areas had fallen to other peoples, especially the Anglo-Saxons and Irish Scotia. -- The Cornish. The people of Cornwall have as clear a descent from the Britons as the Welsh, even if they occupied a smaller territory and came to be dominated politically by the Anglo-Saxons much earlier. The "Cornish" language is a known Celtic variant closely related to Welsh. -- The Bretons. The people of Brittany in modern France. This was a colony apparently established by Romanized Britons in the early medieval period as Albion fall under Anglo-Saxon domination. Their descendants speak two insular Celtic languages, Breton and Gallo, both related closely to Welsh and Cornish. All of these are descendants of the language of the ancient Britons. Ftjrwrites 18:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)ftjrwrites[reply]

I am not disputing this, but after reading the first sentance, I wondered if there is a reference for the term "Great" being an Early Modern product of the Stuart crown. I could easily believe it, but I thought it was a geographical reference – it being the greatest (in terms of area) of the "British Isles". Britannia was originally the name of the island group today known as the "British Isles", Pytheas describes the entire island group of the north atlantic as Πρεττανοί (Prettanoi) Obviously the Great part came later, as it is a word of West Germanic etymology ("grauta"), but never thought of it only being added after the union of the crowns. I would imagine that prior to the 17th century one would usually just refer to either Scotland or England as geographic entities rather than Britain, but is there no record of it being called "Great" prior to the union of the crowns?

Does it make sense for this entry to be associated specifically with the Northern Ireland project? It would seem to have much broader interest and ought to relate to projects associated with a greater geographical area, such as the British Isles or Geography of Ancient Europe. The connection with Northern Ireland is pretty obscure. It would be analogous to putting the entry on "Northern Ireland" under Pennsylvania. A move of the Albion article to a broader project would likely attract the attention of a more diverse spectrum of editors with a wider range of interests in the topic, so that the discussion is not limited by Northern-Irish-centric biases. (As an American of Scots-Irish descent, I'm not saying anything against the Northern Irish perspective per se, but merely arguing for the value of broader perspectives, especially with a topic that is clearly not an exclusively Northern Ireland issue.) Ftjrwrites 18:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)ftjrwrites[reply]

I agree. I'm Canadian, but from a genealogical perspective my ancestry is essentially Irish, English, Scottish and Norwegian. Of the four, the one with the most tenuous connection to Albion is the Irish. While many folks who live in or have ancestors from Northern Ireland may also have ancestry from the island formerly known as Albion, the British isle of more significance to the Northern Ireland project was known in Greek as Ἰέρνη (I[w]ernē )and Ἰουερνία (Iouernia); the latter form was converted into Latin as "Hibernia". However, even the article on Hibernia has broader significance than to the Northern Ireland project, since the greater mass of the island is now known as the Republic of Ireland. I suggest we re-classify both articles. Garth of the Forest (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. The name Albion has nothing to do with Northern Ireland. Indeed, as a Welshman I might add that it has precious little to do with Wales either: the Welsh do not wax lyrical about "Albion" and it finds no place in early, medieval or modern Welsh literature. Whatever its origins and relation to Alba (Scotland), the whole thing is an essentially English concept. I suspect that the inclusion of NI here is yet another example of failing to distinguish between [Great] Britain (Wales, Scotland, England) and the modern polity known as the UK. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theres a song called "Old Albion" by Skrewdriver. -82.207.201.74 00:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added it to the disambiguation page. Alansplodge (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The song, "Achilles Last Stand", appears on the Led Zeppelin album, "Presence", not Led Zeppelin IV as noted in the article. THX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirven (talk • contribs) 22:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a little aside, I edited this as quite frankly to start with "Various teams bear the suffix, not lease Brighton and Hove Albion" is risible when West Bromwich Albion are by far and away the most successful team with this suffix. ThePennyDrops (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Artvandelay (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across an article published by The Dalriada Celtic Heritage Trust several years ago that refers to Albion, or the Isle of Albiones, being named by Himilco the Carthaginian (Himilco the Navigator) around 500 B.C.E. which pre-dates Ptolemy. According to Himilco, the isle was inhabited by a race referred to as the Hierni. Aristotle was said to have reported that what were known as the Brettanic Isles were known otherwise as Albion and Ierne. - DNCamper 15:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Aristotle reference is false, it's in fact a Pseudo-Aristotle (De mundo), dating to the 1st century BC. But the Himilco reference would be extremely interesting, if it can be substantiated. But perhaps it is also pseudo-epigraphical? --dab (𒁳) 10:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it turns out that "Himilco" is the poetic account by Avienus in the 4th century. This doesn't give us anything new. We know the island was called Albion by the 1st century BC, and probably since Pytheas (320s BC). Earlier evidence depends on your take on Avenius (Himilco, Massaliote Periplus). dab (𒁳) 11:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the popular culture section of this article is longer than the article itself. Anyone else see a problem with this? Besides random trivia is against Wiki standards anyway. The whole section needs to be configured to prose explaining how the subject impacted popular culture, as opposed to listing in so-and-so video game or so-and-so book they used the name. Otherwise most, if not all, of that section will be deleted.24.190.34.219 (talk) 12:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this page is complete without mentioning that the term Albion is used by white supremacists in Britain to refer to the nation, usually in a Zion sense, ie promised land, holy land, which of course they believe has been desecrated. Presumably this is partly due to the similarity to the Latin for "white". For sources, see anything by the BNP, National Front, EDL, etc etc. Arctic hobo (talk)

I think you are just a politically correct corporal who can't resist coming out with this rubbish, anything Patriotic is fascist to people like you isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.75.119 (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's all very well, but nonetheless what I stated is true, it is a term used by white supremacists. For example, see this link: http://bnp.org.uk/peakoil/opportunity.htm Arctic hobo (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any use by 'white supremacists' certainly merits inclusion; however, I was disappointed to find neither 'albion' nor any ethnic opinions in the referenced link. It is only logical for geologists to believe that American involvement in the mid-East is principally for petroleum. To a geologist, the 'Albion Hills' is a familiar term; and even Kipling frequently used the 'white-cliffs-of-Albion' as an ancient, but not romantic, term for Dover. Geologist (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC) (American)[reply]

Geologist: the BNP are a white supremacist organisation, and a quick search of the page reveals use of the word Albion. And it's only one example, there are plenty more. Arctic hobo (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There are non-racist BNP members and we don't do WP:OR with primary sources. You've got to go find someone at a WP:RS discussing some link between them and this term. Similarly, if the actual skinheads only make use of Albion to refer to Britain, that's not particularly WP:NOTABLE and highlighting their use actually violates WP:FRINGE unless it's actually a major thing, which I rather doubt. More something to mention on their pages (if they have them), linking here to substantiate the 'white' etymology &c. — LlywelynII 13:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This brief article is very enjoyable; but I wish to remind people that the section 'etymology' should probably be one paragraph. Etymology is difficult, but it is hard to imagine the Gaelic word arose before Latin was introduced; so people should appreciate any scholarly theories about this. Geologist (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC) (American)[reply]

It's clearly related to the word for white, i.e., the white cliffs of Dover.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving the following statement here as a placeholder. It doesn't have any context nor citation. Please don't put it back without establishing both. Toddst1 (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as Eburon gives the people of ebur (the Yew) and Avelon gives the people of the Apple, so with Albi +on gives us people of Albi the Albic tribe of Gog and Magog.^{[clarification needed]}

Why is there no mention of the poem 'Des Grantz Geanz' (Of The Great Giants)? I was under the impression that it was the earliest written reference to Albion – being named after Albina, the eldest of the 33 exiled Grecian princesses, who bred with the demons to whelp the giants that Brutus of Troy faced in 'The History of The Kings of Britain'. It's mentioned briefly here and if you google Des Grantz Geanz, there are further references. The historical novel, Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel also makes mention of it when discussing early British mythology. I'm sure there's more info out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.120.234 (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take out all the vowels and you have Lamed Bet Noon (LBN). Which is the Semitic root meaning "white" (cf Laban in Genesis).

Something to think about Mark76 (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, why is the Scotland project not sharing this article?--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 08:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've now dome some -hopefully serious- work on the section (following all the relevant work I've been doing over the past few days at the relevant articles; see talk page here). But it still needs major work.The most significant problem (though not the sole one), is imo the that of citing-quoting therein archaic scholars and works(Pytheas, Massaliote Periplus) and their works as if we still have their works in full and intact and as if we're not quoting-citing them through excerpts of them etc in works of scholars of later times.I've corrected this a bit by adding phrases that explain this a bit.But what I haven't change is imo the worst case of the aforementioned problem(cause of prossibility of, however minute or big, personal ignorance):
... the Massaliote Periplus (originally written in the 6th century BC, translated by Avienus at the end of the 4th century),does not use the name Britannia; instead it speaks of nēsos Iernōn kai Albiōnōn "the islands of the Iernians and the Albiones". ...
Is there some fragment, book or whatever, modern or ancient, in Greek or into Greek, that I'm missing? Cause as I understand it what is being quoted here is Avenius' Ora Maritima;a poem in Latin; that although being considered to contain material from the Massaliote Periplus, to have used it as a source, is nevertheless a different work and moreover a text in Latin!! And again, as I see it, someone, some editor(s) here, has translated the Latin into (ancient) Greek (probably by analogy to the words other abundant Greek sources cited at other relevant wikiarticles) and therefrom has done on top of a latinisation -see edit history- an anglicisation, possibly or probably based on the following passage in Snyder's book The Britons:
"...The earliest appear in a periplus (‘circumnavigation’), or sailing manual, written by a mariner from Massilia (Marseilles) in the sixth century BC. Though we do not possess this manual, it was used (along with information from the Carthaginian admiral Himilco) by the Roman writer Avienus in his poem Ora Maritima(‘The Maritime Shores’) c.AD 400. While describing the ancient trade route along the Atlantic coasts from Cadiz to Brittany, Avienus mentions ‘the Sacred Island’ inhabited ‘by the race of Hiberni’ (‘sacred’ being a common Greek interpretation of the Irish word Ierne) and the nearby ‘island of the Albions (insula Albionum).’ The earliest Greek explorers seem to have identified the inhabitants of Britain geographically, that is by naming them after an island they knew as ‘Albion.’3 This enigmatic name for Britain,...".
I've made serious changes,I've added references etc but I can't do evething.Let someone else do the rest of the work(at least for now).You can use the abundant available references, sources and resources that can be found in the other articles I've mentioned(see talk page link above), especially the ones at the Britain (placename) article.Thanx.
P.S.After writing this I also added various tags (e.g. dubious) after Isadorus Charactacenis; this is another major problem of this section, an equally funny-interesting to the one above but in its own very different way.As I've already asked at the edit summary of the tags' insertion :
Who is this guy?What's with the A in his first name instead of an I ?When is he supposed to have live?How is he supposed to have influenced subsequently many classical writers?
P.P.S.May it be that whoever wrote this passage about Isadorus Charactacenis, meant instead this guy: Isidore of Charax?But even if he-she had indeed meant him, wherefrom does he-she concluded, deduced that The name Albion was used by Isadorus Charactacenis and subsequently by many classical writers? Thanatos|talk 07:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The classical Greek name was Bollocksopia, meaning a pair of spheres. The Etymology section is of a similar nature, and the refs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.70.29 (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This long unsourced list tagged {{In popular culture}} since January 2009 is absolutely ridiculous and unencyclopedic. Please do not add entries back to the article without both:

• Specific, well-formed citations from WP:RS
• An explanation on the talk page about why the reference is so significant that it should be included.

Toddst1 (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I agree. Trivia occurrences of "Albion" under Albion#In popular culture is a digression and redundant: if you want to read the trivia you can read it on the Albion (disambiguation) (dab) page. Accordingly, I performed housekeeping on trivia reintroduced into the article, and moved/merged all but a couple into dab.

As for the trivia list that Toddst1 quarantined above (collapsed list entitled "Extended content"), there are some items there that are not in dab as of this writing, though I am not bothering to relocate. For bookkeeping purposes, I annotated the above list, with a Y mark next to items already found on dab page.

A bunch of songs that have "Albion" in their lyrics seems hardly warranted, so those were excised without copying into dab. In Toddst1's list "strikeout" over these songs. --Kiyoweap (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Britannica : "Albion, the earliest-known name for the island of Britain. It was used by ancient Greek geographers from the 4th century bc and even earlier, who distinguished “Albion” from Ierne (Ireland) and from smaller members of the British Isles. The Greeks and Romans probably received the name from the Gauls or the Celts. The name Albion has been translated as “white land”; and the Romans explained it as referring to the chalk cliffs at Dover (Latin albus, “white”)."

1 "used by ancient Greek geographers from the 4th century"

2 "The Greeks and Romans probably received the name from the Gauls or the Celts." (Probably)

Here it is [1]

this is the POV

"The Brittonic name for the island, Hellenized as Albíōn (Ἀλβίων) and Latinized as Albio (genitive Albionis), derives from the Proto-Celtic nasal stem *Albi̯iū (oblique *Albiion-) and survived in Old Irish as Albu (genitive Albann)."

This is an original research, reliable sources?--151.46.63.109 (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You edit war and vandalize article after article until they are locked down and you still don't get the message! You don't know what you are talking about, you have no background in linguistics or history and you are making a mess on Wikipedia. GO AWAY, TROLL!! Cagwinn (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You talk about trolls? the sources are unclear (Encyclopaedia Britannica) ... your attitude is not constructive. Wikipedia is not a game. Your behavior is a mystery. Wikipedia is damaged by your actions. Your information is original research, reliable sources?.--151.34.168.103 (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest changing this sentence in the Etymology section from this: It has two possible etymologies: either *albho-, a Proto-Indo-European root meaning "white" (perhaps in reference to the white southern shores of the island, though Celtic linguist Xavier Delamarre argued that it originally meant "the world above, the visible world", in opposition to "the world below", i.e., the underworld), or *alb-, Proto-Indo-European for "hill".[6][7][8]

to this: It has two possible etymologies: either *albho-, a Proto-Indo-European root meaning "white" (perhaps in reference to the white southern shores of the island; or, Celtic linguist Xavier Delamarre argued that it originally meant "the world above, the visible world", in opposition to "the world below", i.e., the underworld), or *alb-, Proto-Indo-European for "hill".[6][7][8]

I've just changed ", though" to "; or,". The reason is that "either... though" isn't a typical English formation, in my experience, whereas "either... or" is. The semi-colon is just used to more clearly differentiate the two choices laid out by the "either... or". The whole second part (after the "or") could probably be re-written to use parallel form to the first part (after "either"), but I didn't attempt that. If you want to do so, you might try lettering the choices (e.g., "It has two possible etymologies: a) *albho-...; or b) Celtic linguist...") or using full sentences for each choice. --Kevintreg (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Kevintreg (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The either...or split is actually after the right parenthesis – or *alb-, Proto-Indo-European for "hill". While the sentence as it stands is fairly clunky, the use of though is meant to contrast the possible meanings of "albho-" Cannolis (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the current one only lasts until September 7 and I want to make it fully semi-protected. —73.47.37.131 (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Cannolis (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in the main article on sydney it says:

The colony was at first to be titled "New Albion", but Phillip decided on "Sydney" in recognition of The 1st Baron Sydney—later created The 1st Viscount Sydney in 1789—and his role in authorising the establishment of the settlement.^[1]

while this article says for 'some unknown reason'. perhaps this could be changed?

Aguyintobooks (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

agreed Mathiastck (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I thought some additional information about the Celtic cognates to 'Alba' might be constructive. For one, the traditional nominative of the Irish 'Albain' is 'Alba', which shows its correspondence to the other 5th declension noun that is cognate in both languages: in Irish, 'Eíre' (dative: 'Éirinn'). Any thoughts? Cpt Wise (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]