|
User talk:Cuchullain/Archive 24
Disambiguation link notification for July 31Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Wachowskis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cloud Atlas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Your GA nomination of Riverside and AvondaleHello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Riverside and Avondale you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. HiYou said "obvious to uninvolved editors" - such is obvious to involved editors too. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC) ANI notificationHi, Cuchullain. Hijiri88 here. Long time no see! I'm editing under a proxy username in order to keep JoshuSasori off my back for at least the next few days. Anyway, just thought I should mention that I brought your name up in my ANI posting. Cheers! Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 12:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC) You've got mail It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 11:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Your GA nomination of Riverside and AvondaleThe article Riverside and Avondale you nominated as a good article has passed JoshuSasori SPIDid I file this wrong? Although, by calling me Trollvenlout, he's already admitted to being a sock, so ... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 7Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jacksonville Bullets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Skating rink (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Need help with articleI need help with article for Mr.CAP of the South Park Coalition. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bjoyce1/sandbox Bjoyce1 (talk) 06:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
|
 As a member of WikiProject Wales, WikiProject Cardiff or an user who has contributed to Welsh articles we invite you to contribute to a new project, Living Paths!: articles, images, translations... Lonely Planet rated the coast of Wales "the best region on Earth" in 2012, yet there is a very low number of articles on the history and culture of places along the Coastal Path. This promises to be an exciting project as it gathers momentum with many Users joining in across the world. |
|
If you are interested in training groups in Wales, please leave a message on the Talk Page. |
Cymrodor (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Good for Me (song)
Do you want to reconsider your closure or shall we move direct to move review? Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- You'll have to clarify - what's the problem?--Cúchullain t/c 19:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I was confused by your move. Not cool to pull that without discussing with me.--Cúchullain t/c 20:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not clever? There was a clear consensus to move to Good for Me (Amy Grant song) which you not only ignored, but reverted in opposition to consensus. I take it you do not believe in consensus. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- You brought this up here, not indicating what the problem was, then moved the article anyway minutes later. I'm more than happy to discuss it, but you'll have to meet me half way.--Cúchullain t/c 21:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- I posted above, then realising there was no reason why I could not follow the consensus and moved the article, did so. I was interrupted but would have explained back here. There was clear consensus to move to Amy Grant song which you ignored and reverted my uncontroversial move. Let consensus win and we can agree! Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's not a candidate for a move as "uncontroversial" as the article's title had just been subject to a discussion, in which you participated. I know I don't really have to say this, but RMs aren't up-and-down head counts and local consensus doesn't trump the project-wide consensus behind the article title policy. This isn't the tone to strike with someone you're trying to convince of your view.--Cúchullain t/c 02:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- I posted above, then realising there was no reason why I could not follow the consensus and moved the article, did so. I was interrupted but would have explained back here. There was clear consensus to move to Amy Grant song which you ignored and reverted my uncontroversial move. Let consensus win and we can agree! Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- You brought this up here, not indicating what the problem was, then moved the article anyway minutes later. I'm more than happy to discuss it, but you'll have to meet me half way.--Cúchullain t/c 21:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not clever? There was a clear consensus to move to Good for Me (Amy Grant song) which you not only ignored, but reverted in opposition to consensus. I take it you do not believe in consensus. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I was confused by your move. Not cool to pull that without discussing with me.--Cúchullain t/c 20:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that Richhoncho doesn't seem to be following proper due process here – that was not a candidate for an "uncontroversial" move. But I also don't see quite how you could properly find a consensus to move to that partially disambiguated "(song)" title in that move discussion. I also find it a bit disappointing that you're the one who took that particular closing action, against a 4:2 majority of participants in the discussion (4:1 in terms of those who explicitly expressed a preference between the PDAB and full dab), just a few days after closing Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 August#On My Way (song) (closed) and after WP:DAB was modified to clarify that what counts is not whether "there aren't any other articles", but simply whether a subject exists anywhere on Wikipedia or not (regardless of whether it exists as an article or as a secondary item within another article – please see also the related discussion at WT:DAB). The example provided at WP:PDAB is an album, but songs pose the same basic situation. To me, it is really silly for us to collectively try to establish whether one particular parenthetically disambiguated song is more primary than another candidate song (especially when none of the songs are covered in much real depth), when we can instead just use "(Artist X song)" as an article title instead of attempting to truncate it to just "(song)", thereby forcing ourselves to struggle over whose song we might want to pick as the primary song among several (3 in the case of "Good for Me"). —BarrelProof (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- I repeat that there was a consensus to move to Amy Grant song, and as that was a red link I felt I was perfectly correct to do so. The fact I posted here first is what stymied due process. So hands up, what I did was "not good" but done completely in good faith. Whereas ignoring consensus and reverting something because "I did what I did and I was right..." In addition to BarrelBroof's comments regarding primary topics, the problem with cultural items is that notability/primary topic is fleeting, a term as common as "Good for Me" will have been used over and over again (with or without WP articles or mention in articles). Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Let's move past the page move issue. As far as this argument, I have two reservations. The first is with the interpretation of WP:DAB. I admit I haven't followed the discussion and changes there closely, however, so far as I see the only thing that's changed is a recently added, easily overlooked footnote saying topics are "covered" if they're a "either the main subject of an article, or a minor subject covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject". I'm sorry, but I just don't read this as saying that merely being mentioned in some article makes a topic covered there, nor does it even mention this title format, let alone recommend it. If that's really the consensus, then that wording needs some serious changes; barring clarification the proposed titles conflict with the article title policy, which trumps (interpretations of) guidelines.
- Second is the claim of consensus. It is true that numerically more editors wanted the longer title (4-6). However, only two of them gave any reasoning (both evidently citing the new addition to DAB). Frankly, this isn't a headcount, and a majority vote at one discussion doesn't trump the project-wide consensus behind the article title policy and other related discussions that have closed recently. Barrel, I was actually specifically thinking about On My Way (song) as another that had closed similarly to this one, as well as Best Song Ever (song), closed by me. As an aside, if your problem is really that I close too many RMs and move reviews, by all means recruit some other admins to get involved; both processes consistently have considerable backlogs and we'd all appreciate the help.
- There are a half dozen or so editors who advocate for this format at every song-related RM, but overall I'm not detecting that consensus has really changed on this issue. However, seeing the discussion at DAB, it may well be that I'm wrong on that. I suggest returning to this article (or another one) after a while and starting a discussion specifically about this title change.--Cúchullain t/c 16:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- I certainly wasn't suggesting that you close too many moves! – you are only to be thanked for providing that valuable service. What bugged me is that this involved a particular touchy issue that was under active policy discussion – specifically the combination of PDAB for a song (which, as Richhoncho points out, implies a tendency toward fickle popularity) with the question of whether the existence of a stand-alone article matters relative to the case where other candidate subjects are sub-topics within other articles. After closing a move review on that same topic, you immediately proceeded to close a very similar move request in a way that looks rather like a supervote in the same direction (against a 4:1 majority of those that expressed an opinion about the PDAB aspect of the song article title). I also draw some distinction between closing a move review and closing a move request. My opinion is that it would have been preferable if someone other than you (or Tariq) would have closed the "Good for Me" RM. If you look at the recent WT:DAB discussion that underlies the new note, you'll see that there is specific discussion of whether mere mention in an article is sufficient to establish "coverage", and all responses to that question thus far (that I recall) were affirmative.
- This situation isn't really quite exactly the same, in my opinion, as the "On My Way" case, in some ways. Here the competing songs seemed less notable and the candidate primary article might have slightly more depth. But, on the other hand, there was also the strong majority in favor of the longer name and the recent movement that resulted in the added note to WP:DAB about articles-versus-subtopics.
- —BarrelProof (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Response to Cuchullain. You say consensus hasn't changed and quote two articles where I opposed. How about the more recent Talk:Gorilla (Bruno Mars song) - Not moved, Talk:Walking on Air (Kerli song) - Moved to current title, Talk:Doin' It (Liberty X song) -Not moved, Talk:Try Again (Aaliyah song) - Moved to current title.(Do you want to see more?) There is, with the recent change to DAB (which is post your two examples, anyway), a growing consensus at RM that does not want to move unnecessarily (Hurrah!) and an acceptance that song (X song) is actually helpful and not really a hindrance. There was never any doubt in my mind how this should have been closed, then to see something else is rather upsetting and unsettling. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- BarrelProof, I think that's a fair point of criticism. On the other hand, if all closers held off on such closes, the backlogs would be even worse than they already are. I also don't believe it was a "strong majority" that favored the longer title; it was 4-2, of which only 2 of the 4 gave any rationale, and both were pretty weak. And again, if the consensus is really changing, it's not reflected really reflected at DAB, even in the new addition.
- Richhoncho, in "Doin' It", "Try Again", and "Walking On Air" there were ambiguous song articles. I'll give you "Gorilla". I'm sorry, but I'm not really seeing a sea change in consensus, nor is such a change reflected in WP:DAB, even with the new wording, and of course the article title policy hasn't changed. Of course, I'm happy to admit if I'm wrong or if things change.
- Here's my suggestion: after a while, let's start a fresh RM that will specifically be about this proposed title, as opposed to just adding it into another proposal (as was the case here). Present your evidence and viewpoints, and the community can vet it. We'll leave it up to a different admin to close, and if it passes, it's all the more evidence of changing consensus. If it doesn't, well, the name stays. Does this sound reasonable?--Cúchullain t/c 21:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- To me, that's a fine suggestion – or we can just collectively try to keep an eye on the further developments on this issue elsewhere – it probably won't be long before some similar situation pops up again for some other similar case. I don't personally have the stomach for quickly starting a move review or another RM on this particular song. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Response to Cuchullain. Sorry, not good enough. I will remind you of your own opinion at Talk:All I Really Want, which commences, "Oppose. The Alanis Morissette song is the clear primary topic." With this and your comments above you have shown your opinion how these should go. Reading the actual RM for the song I note there is not one policy/guideline supporting the move to song, but two people quoted guidelines to support moving to Amy Grant song. Whichever way you read the comments in your closure, you have exercised a casting vote and, as you have done with On My Way, given something to be quoted in favour of the status quo. Is that impartial?
- So why, because you have the result you want, do we have to relist "in due course?" It's a complete fabrication that to add (artist song) is detrimental to WP - check with your own google searches! --Richhoncho (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- This really isn't the way to speak to someone you're trying to convince of your viewpoint.--Cúchullain t/c 23:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- You resemble that remark ;). I am not trying to convince you of a viewpoint,I am asking you to amend a tiny error you made. Not a biggie, I have made my share of mistakes in the past and will continue to do. There is a continuing discussion at Talk:Good for Me (song) that appears to agree with me that the article is presently in the wrong place, too. If you check the MR for On My Way you will note although I opposed the result I supported the closure so you can't accuse me of not being reasonable. --Richhoncho (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- This really isn't the way to speak to someone you're trying to convince of your viewpoint.--Cúchullain t/c 23:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- To me, that's a fine suggestion – or we can just collectively try to keep an eye on the further developments on this issue elsewhere – it probably won't be long before some similar situation pops up again for some other similar case. I don't personally have the stomach for quickly starting a move review or another RM on this particular song. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, in "Doin' It", "Try Again", and "Walking On Air" there were ambiguous song articles. I'll give you "Gorilla". I'm sorry, but I'm not really seeing a sea change in consensus, nor is such a change reflected in WP:DAB, even with the new wording, and of course the article title policy hasn't changed. Of course, I'm happy to admit if I'm wrong or if things change.
- BarrelProof, I think that's a fair point of criticism. On the other hand, if all closers held off on such closes, the backlogs would be even worse than they already are. I also don't believe it was a "strong majority" that favored the longer title; it was 4-2, of which only 2 of the 4 gave any rationale, and both were pretty weak. And again, if the consensus is really changing, it's not reflected really reflected at DAB, even in the new addition.
- Response to Cuchullain. You say consensus hasn't changed and quote two articles where I opposed. How about the more recent Talk:Gorilla (Bruno Mars song) - Not moved, Talk:Walking on Air (Kerli song) - Moved to current title, Talk:Doin' It (Liberty X song) -Not moved, Talk:Try Again (Aaliyah song) - Moved to current title.(Do you want to see more?) There is, with the recent change to DAB (which is post your two examples, anyway), a growing consensus at RM that does not want to move unnecessarily (Hurrah!) and an acceptance that song (X song) is actually helpful and not really a hindrance. There was never any doubt in my mind how this should have been closed, then to see something else is rather upsetting and unsettling. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Let's move past the page move issue. As far as this argument, I have two reservations. The first is with the interpretation of WP:DAB. I admit I haven't followed the discussion and changes there closely, however, so far as I see the only thing that's changed is a recently added, easily overlooked footnote saying topics are "covered" if they're a "either the main subject of an article, or a minor subject covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject". I'm sorry, but I just don't read this as saying that merely being mentioned in some article makes a topic covered there, nor does it even mention this title format, let alone recommend it. If that's really the consensus, then that wording needs some serious changes; barring clarification the proposed titles conflict with the article title policy, which trumps (interpretations of) guidelines.
You may want to compare your actions with Talk:Doin' It (Liberty X song). Closed as one thing then immediately moved. Yep. Familiar? Controversial? --Richhoncho (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- You already mentioned that one, and there was an ambiguous song article (LL Cool Jay's Doin It). The fact that you don't see the difference is, I think, a major part of this disagreement.
- I don't think you're unreasonable, I think we just don't see eye to eye on this. It was a judgement call. The actual move proposal was from the base title "Good for Me" to "Good for Me (song)". All participants favored a move of some kind and it's not the primary topic, so it had to go somewhere. The proposed title is in fact the usual way to disambiguate non-primary topics per the title policy and associated guidelines, and it was supported by two participants including the nominator. The longer title was preferred by four participants, but it doesn't have the same grounding in policy.
- To be moved to the longer title, it needs to go before the community as a specific request to that end, not just being added to a different request involving a primary topic question. That way everyone could decide specifically between those two titles.--Cúchullain t/c 14:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, I want to apologize to both of you for not being very timely with my responses the last few days. There's been a lot going on, on Wikipedia and especially off it. Please do know I'm reading and considering the comments and will make every effort to respond as quickly and effectively as I'm able. Cheers,--Cúchullain t/c 14:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
JoshuSasori latest outing
You'll have seen that one of the latest socks named itself after a Dublin real world address. You may wish to history-remove some comments I have (not knowing all the background) made along with some of the sock's User page history. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, In Ictu. It's a very sticky situation. I've been in contact with Hijiri about it, we'll sort it out.--Cúchullain t/c 14:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Call to order
Will you please remain WP:CIVIL in your comments, in particular when addressing a user with few edits? Should I remind you that there are behavioral policies as well as content policies, and that you don't need to answer each comment you disagree with? Please contribute to create a sane environment to discuss the topic calmly, by keeping hostility low. Diego (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please don't try to lecture me. There's nothing uncivil or inappropriate about that response. I find it rather odd that you'd focus on that while you twice re-added this blatant violation of WP:NOTAFORUM and the talk page guidelines.--Cúchullain t/c 20:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Upstairs, Downstairs
Excuse me, but didn't we just have a Talk page discussion and decide not to move "Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series)" to "Upstairs, Downstairs", with just about everyone commenting that a comma wasn't sufficient to distinguish one topic from the others that are listed on the "Upstairs Downstairs" dab page? —BarrelProof (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Fair question. Much the same position as above. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- I noticed that last night but wasn't in a position to fix it. I missed the previous discussion; I was cleaning up the page after the split from over a year ago after a related topic came up on MR. I'll be moving it back shortly as it's not a candidate for an uncontroversial move. It still leaves open the question of what to do with the base name considering it had been left redirecting to the longer title for well over a year.--Cúchullain t/c 12:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Move review for Carpi FC 1909
An editor has asked for a Move review of Carpi FC 1909. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. CapPixel (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Zidek, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charlotte Hornets (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of San Marco (Jacksonville)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article San Marco (Jacksonville) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Quadell -- Quadell (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- I have place the nomination on hold. It's close to GA status, but has a few issues that need to be addressed. If these are dealt with in the next 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it will fail. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to review this, Quadell. I'm a but busy at the moment to give it the time it needs, but I'll be able to get to it tomorrow or Monday at the latest.--Cúchullain t/c 21:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not a problem. – Quadell (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to review this, Quadell. I'm a but busy at the moment to give it the time it needs, but I'll be able to get to it tomorrow or Monday at the latest.--Cúchullain t/c 21:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of San Marco (Jacksonville)
The article San Marco (Jacksonville) you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:San Marco (Jacksonville) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Quadell -- Quadell (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Congratulations! – Quadell (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Great! Thanks so much for the review.--Cúchullain t/c 13:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Harold S. Bucquet may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- * ''[[Without Love (film)|Without Love)]]'' (1945)
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1930 in music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Without Love (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:MRV Closing script
I have created a closing script for move reviews, which can found at User:Armbrust/closemrv.js. If you want to use it, than simply add
importScript('User:Armbrust/closemrv.js');
to your vector JS page and bypass your cache. (Not tested on monobook or modern either.) Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 02:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
You received this message because you closed at least one MRV discussion in the last six months.
Osceola and Renegade
Looking back at the edit history, it seems I'm not the first person to try to correct this page. Osceola and Renegade are NOT mascots. It is not a matter of FSU jargon; symbol is not some obscure word that Wikipedia readers can't understand. In their thirty five years representing FSU, they have never been mascots. You wrote that they are the "official mascots" of Florida State University. Clearly they are not. How can they possibly be the "official mascots" when the University does not recognize them as such?
The sources that call them mascots are incorrect. It is the school that chooses its mascot; if the school does not call something its mascot, then it is not the mascot. It seems rather simple. Whether a few reporters have figured that out or not doesn't change the matter. Reporters have been wrong before. If a reporter started calling them the Florida State Cherokee, the team's not going to change their name because of it. Many people call Osceola and Renegade mascots. They also call him Chief Osceola, another common misconception that I found in the article (thanks for not changing that one back). However, there is no logical reason that you, though you clearly know the history and that they are not mascots, should continue to change it back. That's my last on the matter, as it was rather random that I came across the page and wanted to change it. I do not have the time to go back and forth with you, as has happened in previous edits, but I hope you will think about the reason you are so adamant in calling them mascots. The sources you cite are secondary; go to the school as a primary source. Wikipedia is a great resource and continually reversing a necessary change only interferes with the purpose.
P.S. FSU does have a mascot; it's a goofy horse wearing shorts named Cimarron. Write an article about him if you must talk about mascots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristenhausman (talk • contribs) 22:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment, Kristen. This is a disagreement involving Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia articles rely on secondary sources written by authors with expertise on the subject. FSU's own publications are primary sources for the school's own positions on the mascot issue; they may be used to describe the university's position, but they can only be used with care and they don't override what appears in the independent, reliable sources. In this case, all the secondary sources - King & Springwood, Rossier, the USA Today, and the New York Times - call Osceola a "mascot", so that's what we go with. However, we can and do note in the article that FSU only calls them "symbols".--Cúchullain t/c 14:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi
mentioned you here. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, that's not good. Hopefully some English-speaker over there can take care of it.--Cúchullain t/c 14:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well DHN is an admin over there. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
ANZAC Mounted Division
User:RoslynSKP has put forward an additional move request for ANZAC Mounted Division (Talk:ANZAC_Mounted_Division#Requested_Move_4). I procedurally closed the third discussion on the basis that the move review was fairly concluded. This user doesn't appear to want to listen. I would close the 4th RM myself but I think ti would be better if an administrator did so. i am posting an ANI separately because I think this is getting ridiculous. --Labattblueboy (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this up. I closed the RM and left the nominator a message. Hopefully that will be the end of it.--Cúchullain t/c 14:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Ladies and gents! The disambiguation page is now undeleted as a result of the recent deletion review. Therefore, I invite you to particapte in the move discussion. --George Ho (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Lorca move discussion
Please reconsider the way you have implemented the move consensus. The proposal was to rename the article as Lorca, Spain to avoid surprise to readers, not to substitute the article with a disambiguation page. Given that there are no other articles titled "Lorca" in Wikipedia, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't provide insight on how to handle this exceptional situation, so the consensus at the talk page was to handle in an specific way that improves navigation for all readers. The number of people reading the town article is higher than the people using the hatnote to the poet, so the DAB page at the base name for the town (which is not shared by other articles) is not the best structure at this particular case. Diego (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Moreover, now all articles that linked to the town are pointing to a DAB. There was a clear consensus that this situation should be avoided and all those incoming links should be fixed so as to avoid the current broken status. Diego (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- The majority of people who supported the move did so on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC grounds. At least one even suggested the poet is actually the primary topic. As such, there's no point in redirecting the base name to a longer one, as it wouldn't help the evident majority of readers who are looking for the poet or something else. Articles don't have to have the title to challenge primary topic status, they just have to be called by that title with regularity. For instance, William Shakespeare is the agreed-upon primary topic for "Shakespeare", though the article will never have that title. You and others showed in the discussion that the poet is often called just "Lorca". This is the usual way of handling such arrangements, and I didn't see much if any explicit support for the rather idiosyncratic alternative you proposed.
- In terms of the incoming links, the solution here is just to fix the problemt. As you can see I was in the middle of doing so, feel free to help out. I'm finding that a lot of them (more than I might have expected) actually intend the poet or another use, hence they were already being misdirected in the previous arrangement that sent them to the town's article.--Cúchullain t/c 14:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Library hours?
We have an editor creating sections such as Citrus County, Florida#Library which I think is inappropriate, what do you think? Dougweller (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I might could see that on articles about a library/system, but I don't think it's very useful for the article on the whole county. It certainly shouldn't have an entire section of the article. And if those were added to all articles it would also become a huge maintenance issue to keep up with the hours when they change. My vote would be against it.--Cúchullain t/c 17:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI
I put in a RM2 on a RM you closed back in May but which today was cited as precedent for a similar move. I have comment on the previous RM, though more on contributions than closer. Stats now show that the move was a bad one. Hope this is okay, way too old/cold for a move review. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I think a new discussion is the right move (a move review definitely wouldn't have been appropriate). It is a bit of an unusual case, as the The boy band singer does seem to be well covered at the article and can make a claim for significance compared to the rugby league player, despite not having an article.--Cúchullain t/c 14:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
What do you think of
Clas Myrddin? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- The name is from the Names of the Isle of Britain, a 12th-century text associated with the Triads. Other than not indicating where it's from, the rest of the material is essentially accurate. However, it's not notable by itself, and there's no article on the text itself to redirect it to. It probably should be deleted.--Cúchullain t/c 16:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Not to keen on an AfD, maybe develop Welsh Triads a bit? I think it's mentioned too much for an AfD[1] and it probably belongs somewhere anyway. Dougweller (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps we could add a section on the Names of the Isle of Britain to the Triads article, or create a new article on it.--Cúchullain t/c 18:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Start with the triads article, then see how big it gets. Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps we could add a section on the Names of the Isle of Britain to the Triads article, or create a new article on it.--Cúchullain t/c 18:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Not to keen on an AfD, maybe develop Welsh Triads a bit? I think it's mentioned too much for an AfD[1] and it probably belongs somewhere anyway. Dougweller (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering if you were aware that A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation) was deleted in a previous AfD discussion? I am inclined to nominate the page for deletion as an unnecessary recreation of previously deleted content. bd2412 T 16:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- No, I had no clue about that. I didn't see any deleted page history, though it's gotten somewhat muddled with the recent moves. At any rate I wouldn't consider it any more of a recreation or "unnecessary" than the media article that was recently moved from this title. I created this because links to it were left unchanged, and as I said in the RM, we now have several articles with the same title and no good way to direct readers to them.--Cúchullain t/c 16:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- It appears that the dab page was undeleted at deletion review, before it was rewritten as whatever it is now and moved.--Cúchullain t/c 16:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it was undeleted, without adequate notice, or a particularly good basis for so doing, by a DAB-happy editor specifically seeking to dislodge the 1984 film from the base page name - an effort which is now failing utterly. bd2412 T 17:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it seems to have been undeleted by an admin, but yeah, this whole situation has gotten pretty convoluted and frustrating. I do think the addition of A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film), A Nightmare on Elm Street (video game), and A Nightmare on Elm Street (comics), which didn't exist during the 2009 AfD but are ambiguously titled, justifies re-opening the question of disambiguation. But now the edit history is muddled and I can't imagine there will ever be consensus to move that goofy media list to the base title, no matter how much George pushes the question. I'm not sure what to do from here beyond revisit the question when the current RM inevitably fails.--Cúchullain t/c 17:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with the media list. It is short, clearly presented, and contains all of the media that falls within the franchise. It provides all the navigational benefit of a disambiguation page without creating the inaccurate impression that the media sharing this name is unrelated (as compared to a title with truly ambiguous, unrelated media, such as the recently discussed I, Robot (disambiguation)). A disambiguation page is like a pacemaker - great to have the option where it is really needed, but otherwise not something to go to the trouble of implanting. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- What's wrong with the media list is that it's redundant with the franchise article, and makes it very difficult to find at least 3 of the 5 articles that have the title "A Nightmare on Elm Street". It's like trying to use a dialysis machine you built yourself as a pacemaker, when the real thing is readily available. The dab page format makes the ambiguously-titled articles easy to find, and I doubt it gives anyone the impression that the items are unrelated.--Cúchullain t/c 19:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- The bottom line problem is that the items are related, and therefore not truly ambiguous. bd2412 T 19:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- They are ambiguous as they have the same title but are different topics, even though they're related.--Cúchullain t/c 19:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- The bottom line problem is that the items are related, and therefore not truly ambiguous. bd2412 T 19:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- What's wrong with the media list is that it's redundant with the franchise article, and makes it very difficult to find at least 3 of the 5 articles that have the title "A Nightmare on Elm Street". It's like trying to use a dialysis machine you built yourself as a pacemaker, when the real thing is readily available. The dab page format makes the ambiguously-titled articles easy to find, and I doubt it gives anyone the impression that the items are unrelated.--Cúchullain t/c 19:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with the media list. It is short, clearly presented, and contains all of the media that falls within the franchise. It provides all the navigational benefit of a disambiguation page without creating the inaccurate impression that the media sharing this name is unrelated (as compared to a title with truly ambiguous, unrelated media, such as the recently discussed I, Robot (disambiguation)). A disambiguation page is like a pacemaker - great to have the option where it is really needed, but otherwise not something to go to the trouble of implanting. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it seems to have been undeleted by an admin, but yeah, this whole situation has gotten pretty convoluted and frustrating. I do think the addition of A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film), A Nightmare on Elm Street (video game), and A Nightmare on Elm Street (comics), which didn't exist during the 2009 AfD but are ambiguously titled, justifies re-opening the question of disambiguation. But now the edit history is muddled and I can't imagine there will ever be consensus to move that goofy media list to the base title, no matter how much George pushes the question. I'm not sure what to do from here beyond revisit the question when the current RM inevitably fails.--Cúchullain t/c 17:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it was undeleted, without adequate notice, or a particularly good basis for so doing, by a DAB-happy editor specifically seeking to dislodge the 1984 film from the base page name - an effort which is now failing utterly. bd2412 T 17:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- It appears that the dab page was undeleted at deletion review, before it was rewritten as whatever it is now and moved.--Cúchullain t/c 16:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I would like to take advantage of your offer
You'd mentioned on talk discussion you'd be willing to share the entire Nate Carpenter article on request. I apologize if I drew conclusions without reading the article myself, but I hold sufficient sources have been provided to pass the GNG bar. Disagreement is normal here on the pedia, and I hope we can continue to work together to build the best possible online encyclopedia. BusterD (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sure thing, I'll shoot it to you tomorrow (Jacksonville time). --Cúchullain t/c 01:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Edit conflict on Yustaga
I just ran into an edit conflict with you. Can you let me know when you will be off the article for a while? I'll wait to see if there is anything I still want to add after you are done. -- Donald Albury 15:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Man, I'm so sorry! I thought you were at a stopping point and I wanted to merge the material before it was developed any further. I guess I should have waited. I'm pretty much wrapping up now, again, I'm very sorry for the edit conflict.--Cúchullain t/c 15:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, no problem! I could have left an editing in progress notice, but I've been getting away with not doing so for a long time. I was working my way through Hann's A History of the Timucua Indians and Missions. I'll see if there's anything in there you haven't covered. You have cited books I don't have at hand, so that saves me a trip to the library. I have to go to work soon, so I'll come back to this later, maybe tomorrow. -- Donald Albury 15:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, great. Honestly, I should have just moved my material over years ago, but it's been a while since I thought about it. I don't think I had access to Hann at the time I wrote most of it, but I do have it now. At any rate, I look forward to seeing your new additions.--Cúchullain t/c 15:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, no problem! I could have left an editing in progress notice, but I've been getting away with not doing so for a long time. I was working my way through Hann's A History of the Timucua Indians and Missions. I'll see if there's anything in there you haven't covered. You have cited books I don't have at hand, so that saves me a trip to the library. I have to go to work soon, so I'll come back to this later, maybe tomorrow. -- Donald Albury 15:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
You deleted this on the grounds of already being at AFC, but the process was finished there. Then the author posted it (again) to the main article space, whereupon I was going to have it deleted again on the grounds of non-notability again—except that I then noticed that five of his references were (as far as I can tell) from independent sources. He just didn't create the references correctly, and put Dan Kindlon's name where the name of each of the referenced sources was supposed to go, making it look as though there were only primary sources. See my notes to him at User talk:Sewaneegender in which I chided him for having inadvertently been the cause of his own difficulties, and hoping (though apparently unsuccessfully) to goad him into fixing the references. It seems to me that the man is notable after all, and the trip to AFC was a wild goose chase. What do you think? —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- I acted in response to the speedy tag, which said the article was already at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dan Kindlon. Seeing that it was still there and didn't look done, I deleted the mainspace version. If the references can be cleaned up, there's no reason it can't be resubmitted at AFC.--Cúchullain t/c 20:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- I see you gave Sewaneegender some good guidance—thanks! —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yustaga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ceramics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
RfD nomination of Bangerz
I've nominated Bangerz for retargeting at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 6#Bangerz. Since you participated in the RM discussion for Bangerz (album), you may be interested in commenting on this proposal. --BDD (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)