This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cuchullain. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I moved it to accord with the current guidelines. The dab page wasn't necessary as there was only one thing on it, and it doesn't seem to called "Battle Creek station". But I've added a hat note.--Cúchullaint/c17:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
So you don't know. Look at Jacksonville station and move down to the templates at the bottom of the page. The station is not highlighted on any of them, because redirects can't do that. The Template:Amtrak stations makes the succession templates work smoothly, and should reflect irregular renames or be amended to include "station" as a default. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I'm working with you here. If you are going to rename a lot of Amtrak stations, I will see if I can change that template too. That might be more difficult with the uncertainty of what any article is currently named. Just move them all - no problem!!! Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
There's really only one other use (the third isn't mentioned except in that article). That makes this a WP:TWODABS situation between an existing train station and a defunct one. I'd expect the existing one would be primary topic. As for moving many articles, no there's not really a way to do a bunch of them at once (even in RM, the admin has to do them individually).--Cúchullaint/c21:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to ask how you decided to close the discussion at Talk:City of Manchester Stadium#Requested move 18 February 2015 as a no move. I admit that at first sight, the raw voting numbers seem so point that way - there were more opposes than supports. But, when actually analysing the oppose votes - they are listed here:
Oppose votes
Oppose. Sponsored names are temporary, in some cases change quite frequently, introduce confusion due to multiple venues having similar or (in this case) identical names. I'm not sure what the arrangements are in the UK, but in Australia the non-sponsored names are still used by the non-commercial Australian Broadcasting Corporation - "City of Manchester Stadium" gets a mention as recently as a month ago; [1] - traditional names are also used when there are sponsorship conflicts (e.g. in both the recent Asian Cup and the current Cricket World Cup in Australia) This decision was made by Australian Wikipedians for Australian stadiums several years ago, when we had a few venues flip-flopping between different names and it makes the most sense, since venues are not "renamed" - their operators engage in a short-term financial relationship with a sponsor.
Oppose - As others have pointed out, we don't use sponsored names unless there is no other alternative. The COMS was known as the COMS for several years before Etihad decided to stick their oar in, whereas other stadia like the Emirates Stadium have never had any other name, thus there is no option but to use the sponsored name.
Oppose Long-standing convention/consensus that we do not use temporary sponsored names for stadiums, except in cases where there is no non-sponsored name (as is the case for the Macron Stadium).
Oppose No need to use sponsor name. Even the Amex Stadium redirects to Falmer Stadium to avoid use of sponsor name, even though basically everyone calls it the Amex.
Oppose WP don't uses sponsor names and what happens when the name changes? The article has to be moved again, so let's leave it like it is. Kante4 (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Strong oppose - sponsors come and go but the name "City of Manchester Stadium" will always remain and is the common name if one is to have a wider outlook over an extended time frame. Mbcap (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: For the reasons given by others, namely the long standing practice of not using sponsorship names for English football stadia. --Sussexonian (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't feel that any single one of them stands up to scrutiny as per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The vast majority of these are basically the argument that "we don't use sponsored names for stadia". This is to me invalid on three counts - (1) we do sometimes use sponsored names, e.g. Emirates Stadium, (2) that convention is not written down anywhere; it has never been agreed upon through an RfC, it is merely a vague convention that is sometimes used in some places, but not in others; (3) even if WP:FOOTY did decide to implement such a convention, I think it would still be trumped in this case by WP:COMMONNAME, which is an official policy; if you do a search for "City of Manchester Stadium" and "Etihad Stadium" you will see the two terms aren't even remotely close in terms of usage in reliable sources. Almost every single source, from the media, to books, to the club itself, use the name "Etihad Stadium" now. The name "City of Manchester Stadium" was a temporary name that was in use for a year or two before the stadium was sponsored, it is no sense still called that. I supported the mvoe, so perhaps this is just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but I think the policy arguments for the move were overwhelming. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Amakuru, I'll add a closing summary. My reading was really closer to "no consensus" anyway. I agree that many of the oppose votes were irrelevant. But some of the support votes were as well. We saw a lot of arguments that the new official name was the common one, but little in the way of evidence that this was the case. Additionally, it was noted that there's already another stadium officially named "Etihad Stadium", meaning this one would have to move to a disambiguated title or be shown to be the primary topic of the two (Etihad Stadium (Manchester) was suggested, but there was even less specific sport for that). Several oppose votes did speak to that fact that many stadium articles avoid the temporary sponsorship names in favor of other names, so there's at least a matter of consistency per WP:AT. --Cúchullaint/c13:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your response. I do see what you mean, the arguments presented by either side were hardly overwhelming, and I can see it would be tough to make a case for closing as "moved". It's just slightly frustrating, because I do feel like it's the wrong outcome and that, rightly or wrongly, Wikipedians may be trying to make a value judgement on the concept of stadium sponsorships, (WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS) even though every other reputable sources (BBC etc) has bowed to the fact that the sponsorship situation is what it is. Anyway, no matter, the discussion is closed now, and you did the right thing. Maybe I'll give it a while and then try to gather together an irrefutable set of evidence on the common name front for another crack at it. Thanks again — Amakuru (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would help. It shouldn't be too terribly difficult to get a sampling of how often both names appear in sources published since the name change to see which is really the most common. At that point it will be easier for closers to see which arguments really have merit.--Cúchullaint/c20:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lakeland station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lake Mirror. 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.
Your reversion of the Knanaya article was bizarre. It was considerably improved, before you reverted. The article is currently factually wrong, filled with bizarre myths, and very poorly referenced (the content doesn't match the reference). I know because I made many changes having pored through the original source material. The reflect the way in which scholars view the community and the community itself believes in it— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stansley (talk • contribs)
Stansley, I restored the original wording because it matched the cited references everywhere I could see. The changes were not based on reliable sources and took for granted the claim that the Knanaya are (or have always believed they are) descended from Jewish Christians. Material based on reliable academic sources was excised or altered; for instance the changes misrepresented Swiderski. If you want to change something specific, please bring it up on the article talk page and we can hammer it out.--Cúchullaint/c16:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It is sad to see such academic sources are widely distributed. The origin of such sources like Swiderski's from content submitted to private Universities, accepting such content without background checking in any basis or by guidance or by peer review when it was published is shameful. It is unethical. Reverting to the bizarre descriptions with bot-like nature defies the aspect of intelligent reading. This is not a Benvenuti al Sud or Benvenuti al Nord story.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.18.181 (talk) 05:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for chasing me around after I made a few edits. You beat me to at least one follow-on edit, and caused me to check the natural boundaries for Cwmwd Deuddwr on an OS map and I found I had confused two rivers (I have fixed that mistake now). I really appreciate your help. Emerald (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Emerald-wiki, Thanks! I've been meaning to track you down and thank you for all your good work on these articles. It's so nice to have another interested and knowledgeable editor in this topic area. By the way, does that Rees atlas happen to specify that Cwmwd Deuddwr was part of Buellt? I think I misread Lloyd when I added it there.--Cúchullaint/c16:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I have only one page from the atlas, and to be honest, it is ambiguous because the boundaries are not clearly shown, some ambiguously shown and some not at all. Cwmwd Deuddwr could be part of Gwrtheyrion and I am in the process of trying to find more information. So far I haven't managed to track down a copy of the atlas. Give me a bit more time, if necessary I will move the bit about Cwmwd Deuddwr.Emerald (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
After poring over OS maps for the last hour or so it is clear that Cwmwd Deuddwr is separated from Buellt by a range of significant mountains. Its mountainous nature is shared by Gwrtheyrion, and the wide Wye valley was all that separated them. If I was a ruler in either Cwmwd Deuddwr or Gwrtheyrion, I think I would want to get on with my neighbour to share the valley. I can't find any evidence that things were as I would want them, but I am having doubts about the logic of linking Cwmwd Deuddwr and Buellt without solid evidence. I would like to remove the connection by editing down both articles, what do you think? Emerald (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey Cuchullain, I was rather surprised to find that As I Lay Dying was a dab page--sorry I wasn't around when this was taking place. Anytime you want to revisit it, go ahead and ping me: the proposition that Faulkner's novel is not a primary topic is indeed erroneous. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Speaking as a Southerner, I always found Faulkner to be rather depressing, but I do feel the compulsion to preserve the best elements of the Old South and its post-war transition, Faulkner included. Generally speaking, I also find many of the RM and disambiguation discussions to be ad hoc exercises in reductio ad absurdum, and the RM for As I Lay Dying is Exhibit A for illustrating that problem. Of course, some of the MOS/AT jihadists will probably want to correct Faulkner's capitalization, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Ping me too. If and when you crank up the RM machine. I've got a healthy disrespect for traffic stats; always smells too much like recentism to me. BusterD (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, perhaps the question is worth revisiting. Clearly the novel hasn't gotten less prominent, though I imagine the band may have.--Cúchullaint/c19:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Ahem. "The band went on an indefinite hiatus in 2014 when lead singer Lambesis was incarcerated and sentenced to six years in prison." Yeah, it's time to revisit the disambig issue here, imo. Zeng8r (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Church of the East
Hello, I would like to talk about your recent removal of extremely interesting information from the article here. I am sure no one would deny this sort of information is worthy of mention, so may I ask how would you suggest the wonderful references provided should be included then please? Kind regards. 62.43.38.242 (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
As I said in my edit summary, there's no clear source for the material. Part of it is attributed to John of Damascus. As a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE it may be useful, with caveats, for John's own take on the situation, but it can't be used for interpretation. The second part of the passage was uncited.--Cúchullaint/c13:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Now you have to update naming the conventions in {{SFRTA stations}}, {{MDM stations}} and any other systems you may have moved. You've been doing that for individual {{Amtrak stations}}. If you have changed the entire naming convention to a suffix of "station" that will be quite simple to do. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Hijiri88 here. Does this[3][4][5][6]look like more from our old "friend"? I tried emailing User:Yunshui about a CU when it first came to light, but all of JS's confirmed socks are stale, so all I've got to go on is the Warlord of Mars' word that someone who doesn't like me has been emailing people and that this user's identity needs to be kept secret from the admin corps. I actually suspect for [REASONS REDACTED] that User:Shahwould was either JS or Kauffner impersonating "Hijiri of the Many Socks" as they call me. 182.249.15.106 (talk) 07:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know. It could be, or it could be one of the other editors you've been in conflict with. I don't really want to speculate.--Cúchullaint/c17:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
ANI report
Hey, John Carter (talk·contribs) canvassed a bunch of users who have "interacted" with me in the past for his recent ANI report. He cherry-picked users who didn't seem to like me very much. You and Nishidani (talk·contribs) were the only ones who have generally had positive interactions with me. But for whatever reason he didn't leave the message for you on your main account's talk page. If you want to weigh in, you can. I'm done for now. This whole incident has made me sick and tired of Wikipedia, maybe moreso even than the JoshuSasori incident two years ago. I contribute here because it's fun for me, but for the last few weeks it has not been fun. Seeya. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Wait... I assumedUser:CuChulainn~enwiki was you and the account resulted from the unified login nonsense that I don't really understand, but did you ever have an upper-case C? I don't remember ever interacting with another "CuChullain" on Wikipedia, English or otherwise. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Hijiri88: Apologies for the slow reply, I've been busy with the end of the semester and in and out on Wikipedia. That other account is not me; it must have been someone who created an account with this same name (formatted slightly differently), and it was found recently as the unified account initiative has gone on. I'm sure it was an honest mistake on John Carter's part. I'm afraid I don't have anything to add to the current dispute, beyond saying that it doesn't look to me that your previous harasser has been involved.--Cúchullaint/c13:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay.
I would request that you point out that John Carter went out of his way to find an obscure account whose username vaguely resembles your own, solely so he could claim that he canvassed my "friends" and "enemies" equally without actually having to canvas any of my "friends".
But that's unnecessary now that any consensus result at all is practically impossible, and any consensus to ban me from every article I've ever touched (or whatever was being requested) is even less likely.
So sorry for the messiness anyway, and sorry to bother you when you're busy with real life. I've got a bunch of lectures on "Irish literature" (most of which could just as easily be argued is "English", though...) and similar topics in the past few weeks myself. Messy shit.
Again, I'm confident it was just a honest mistake on John Carter's part. I understand that ANI reports are frustrating, but this isn't a productive line of discourse.--Cúchullaint/c13:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Understood. A few other users told me to just ignore it and get back to improving articles, so that's what I've been focusing on for the last coupla days. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Question
I know that there is a real possibility of an individual having alternate wikipedia accounts which are not necessarily disclosed to the general public. I myself created a one-time use alternate account as part of a study of new articles created by new editors. I have said before I am considering taking certain concerns I have to Arbitration regarding the dispute relating to Kenji Miyazawa. One of the things which I think would be worth knowing whether there are any active, known duplicate accounts being used by any of the editors involved in that discussion. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
John Carter, I am not aware of any participants having active alternate accounts. Hijiri88 does seem to have made some edits logged out under IP addresses, though not in a way that disguises who he is.--Cúchullaint/c13:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Umm, what exactly is being implied here? That User:Sturmgewehr88 is my sock account? What on earth could "known duplicate accounts" have to do with that discussion? I made a few logged-out edits, all declared, and all but one or two long before John Carter (or Sturmgewehr88) got involved; there's no reason to believe any duplicate accounts were involved in the discussion at all. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
@John Carter: Please stop your futile attempt at wikilawyering. I'm honestly sick of it. No one is using alternate acounts in the Kenji dispute. And if you are inferring that I'm Hijiri's sock I'd be extremely offended. In fact, if you try to wikilawyer just one more time, then I'll bring you to ArbCom. Go make productive edits or don't make any edits at all (concerning this dispute at least). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 15:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
My talk page is not going to be a productive area to resolve this dispute. Mind, I don't say there is no socking happening in the discussion; that I don't know. I said to my knowledge no one is using a known secondary account. Questions of socking should be handled through WP:SPI.Cúchullaint/c20:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Adventures, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Archie Andrews. 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.
User:Bordwall and User:LaMona voted for the deletion of this new page, Leviak B. Kelly, for not meeting notability guidelines. However, since the page had just been created, the only ways they would've found it was by specifically searching for that person's wikipedia page, or by stumbling across the name by accident. If they stumbled across the name by accident, then the subject of the page is notable, but if they were intentionally searching for the page only to vote for its deletion, they're acting in bad faith. --Spookyeditorialguy (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@Spookyeditorialguy: I found the page because I was looking through the list of articles for deletion. I had seen the article originally when it was created because I was looking through posts by new users, and thought it seemed eligible for deletion, but didn't have time then to look much more into it. Later, when I saw it on the list for possible deletion, I did a little more looking and couldn't find anything to indicate that Kelley met the notability guidelines for authors, which is what I indicated in my statement on the AfD page. Hope that clears it up. Cheers! Bordwall(talk⁄ctrb)04:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Spookyeditorialguy, I'm not seeing an issue here. Notability is determined by reliable sources, not by people searching for or stumbling upon the article. And there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with either editor's actions. If you want to help the article, I suggest finding some more third-party reliable sources that discuss the subject in some detail, and introducing them.--Cúchullaint/c12:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
"The Mulatto"
Thanks for looking at the article. I was especially glad to learn that there's actually an article on free people of color. There's a lot more I'd like to do with the article (including moving it over the redirect to its English title), but I don't have much time to contribute to Wikipedia these days. Will probably do a little more over the next couple of days, but I got sidetracked by the Cyrille Bissette article, which had been quite thin as well. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Cynwolfe, you've done wonderful work on these articles. I can't wait to read your other additions. I'll wait to make any further changes until you're done.--Cúchullaint/c14:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
June 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to RER 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:
The '''Réseau Express Régional''' ({{IPA-fr|ɛʁ.ə.ɛʁ}}; {{lang-en|Regional Express Network}}}), commonly known as the '''RER''', is a [[Regional rail|regional]] [[rapid transit]] system in [[
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ubiquity (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Station names
Thank you for your continuing efforts to convert Amtrak stations to the new naming convention. But if you use lower case "station" because it is not a proper name, then it is contrary to add "station" in the infobox. Thanks again. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think the infobox should reflect the name of the article (minus disambiguation, of course), but if it helps make this go smoother I'll let it alone.--Cúchullaint/c16:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
It's just until I saw it spelt plen on Wikipedia I'd never seen it spelt that way anywhere else - not at St Just, not at Playing Place on the plaque. Historic Cornwall and English Heritage both use plain, not plen. DuncanHill (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the St. Just "plen" in particular is frequently written as "Plain-an-Gwarry", and the village certainly is. But many (certainly not all) references I've found that spelling are referring to one of those two things specifically. For whatever reason, sources on the constructions seem to prefer "plen-an-gwary". I was a bit surprised myself that there was as much consistency as there is.--Cúchullaint/c21:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I was very pleasantly surprised to see your close on the Dededo article – it's good to see that some admins actually read the debate and assess the arguments. I'm sure some flak will be heading your way though... Cheers, Number5715:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! And no worries, it won't be the first (or last) time. The discussion just showed an inconsistency between title policies and relevant guidelines; I expect the situation will get taken care of sooner rather than later.--Cúchullaint/c15:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Atlantic Bank, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Compassionate727 (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gran Willy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. 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.
I'm a bit tired of the back and forth. Maybe you don't watch as much tennis as I do, so perhaps I have more perspective. Tweener is used interchangeably for forward and backward facing between the legs shots. Sometimes no extra term is used to describe the shot. Simply tweener for either one. This was done with Federer's tweener against Querrey at Wimbledon, which was front facing. It was simply called a tweener by the announcers. Sometimes announcers or the press will use "forward-facing tweener" or "backwards tweener" as at ESPN with the Fognini/Pospisil match with "backwards tweener" right there in the headline. I have seen this many times. Not all tweeners are Gran Willy's but all Gran Willy's are tweeners. This was discussed by me already on the talk page before the move took place. We need to be careful that readers aren't misled with both types of tweeners. I keep trying to fine tune it so readers understand and you seem to want to over-generalize it. The "Sabatweenie" was a particular type of tweener, a backwards tweener, and readers will not know that with your wording changes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I left a comment at the talk page already. The issue is that most sources use "tweener" for the backward shot, or else don't specify. Sometimes the (evidently rarer) front-facing shot is just called a "tweener", but several sources call it a "front tweener" which seems clear enough to me. The issue with your use of "backward tweener" is that it implies this is an established name, though it only turns up in 4 Google results total and not at all in any of the sources cited.
I'm just trying to follow the sources, almost all of which were introduced by me. Perhaps we could say something like "The tweener or between-the-legs shot is a difficult tennis shot where a player hits the ball between his or her legs. The term usually refers to a backward-facing shot, typically performed when the player attempts to recover a lob and has no time to turn back around. Forward-facing between-the-leg shots, sometimes called "front tweeners", are also occasionally employed".--Cúchullaint/c19:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Concerning your closing of the requested move for Columbia TriStar MPG...
How could the result no consensus? King Shadeed CLEARLY presented accurate, up-to-date information in his valid argument FOR the move, while not only did Betty Logan present outdated information in hers (therefore making hers wrong AND irrelevant from the beginning), she NEVER even attempted to answer his questions. In fact, she even went soo far as to imply the news outlets Shadeed quoted as having made up news (which is just plain wrong & unsportsmanlike). It is CLEAR that no consensus was NOT the result of the move request. So, I am politely requesting that the result be changed from no consensus (which it CLEARLY was NOT) to whatever implies the move request succeeded (as that SHOULD be what the result is), or I will take my disputing of YOUR interpretation of the result of the request to a move review to see if any of Wikipedia's other editors find fault in your interpretation & agree that there IS a consensus to move the article to a new pagename. I will give you ONE WEEK from the date this message is posted to make the change before I resort to a move review & attempt to get YOUR interpretation overturned. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Issuing ultimatums is not usually a good way to convince people you're right. I stand by my close: there was no consensus in the discussion, and no clear source indicating that "Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group" has become Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group. As I said, it's obvious we do need coverage of the latter, so you'd probably be better off creating content for the article. Move review is unlikely to come to a different conclusion.--Cúchullaint/c16:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
If you're going to interpret what I said as an ultimatum, that's YOUR choice (even if it wasn't meant as such). If ANYTHING, I was simply giving you what I believe to be a decent amount of time for you to change the result of the request before I take what I believe is the necessary next step: taking the contested close of a move request to a move review. And, since you have decided to stick by your interpretation, then I will go forward with said next step. And, as far as your assumption, well, you know the saying about "assuming". In the end, we shall see what result the move review comes to. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I was clearing out the RM backlog, that discussion had been open since July 7. If you'd like me to reopen the discussion, I'd be amenable.--Cúchullaint/c16:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
It says as I indicated. WP:DABORDER #3 says to place "articles with a clarifier in parentheses" first, with other types of disambiguation and synonyms following. #5 says that "within each non-subdivided section, entries should be ordered to best assist the reader in finding their intended article", including by alphabetical listing, or "decreasing likelihood as a user's target". You placed Middle America (United States) first as the "most common use", but a look at the page view stats show that it's not clearly more common than Middle America (Americas): here vs. here and here. Hence there's not a particular reason to put that article first, and alphabetical ordering, within parenthetical and non-parenthetical groups, makes the most sense.--Cúchullaint/c02:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Likewise Treaty of Paris (1626), peace between king Louis XIII and the Huguenots of La Rochelle, might be falsely identified as and confused with Treaty of Paris (1657), established military alliance between France and England against Spain.
But "a hominoid" would not be falsely identified as "the Hominidae" by a reasonably informed reader.
WP:HN says "Only mention other … articles if there is a large possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind."
If the reader has the topic "hominoid" in mind, there's no way he can arrive at "Hominidae" from the search box – unless he misspells. And WP isn't a spellchecker.
If the reader doesn't know the meaning of the word "hominoid", he's supposed to look it up at Wiktionary. WP:NAD. On a smartphone, he can read the entire definition without scrolling.
And WP:ONESHORTHAT points out that "As hatnotes separate the reader from the content they are looking for, hatnotes should generally be as concise as possible." Try searching for "Hominidae" on a smartphone. In the horizontal (landscape) view, all you see is the headnote. No content at all. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 00:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
"Hominoid" and "Hominidae" are both spelled very similarly and refer to related things (apes minus humans, and apes including humans). I for one would be confused by the terms. I'm not sure how to make the hatnote any more concise, other than removing "humanoid". I guess we could create a dab page for "Hominid" which would include the books called "Hominid" and "Hominids", but that seems like running readers through hoops to save a few characters worth of space in a hat note.--Cúchullaint/c00:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I too am confused by the terms hominoid and Hominidae. But that's not the question. The question is very specific:
Is an interested reader likely to confuse the "Hominidae" article with the "Hominoid" article?
Hominidae = the orangutan, gorilla, chimpanzee, and human.
Hominoid = the gibbon, orangutan, gorilla, chimpanzee, and human.
I don't see how he could confuse the articles — because if he read the word Hominidae somewhere, he's going to enter "hominidae" in the search box, not "hominoid".
"Similar" spellings don't count; they have to be identical (or practically identical). And "related [meanings]" are totally beside the point, unless you know of a WP policy to the contrary.
If he heard (rather than read) the word somewhere, he might not know how to enter it. But these are scientific names, not vernacular names. Almost all of the people who hear these terms know them already, from having read the literature.
In contrast, even the most interested reader would be likely to confuse the "Matt Smith (comics)" article with an article about "Matt Smith (illustrator)". And he'd be likely to confuse an article about the "Treaty of Paris (1626)" with an article about the "Treaty of Paris (1657)".
WP:HN appears to be surprisingly strict about the requirements for hatnotes. Here's why:
"Two applicable … principles are clarity and conciseness. The hatnote should not overload the user with extraneous information, and the content should be imparted quickly …. less is more."
I could be getting hypercorrect, however. What I should do immediately is edit that section of the hat to read:
The titles (Hominoid vs. Hominidae/Hominid) as well as the articles themselves may reasonably cause confusion to readers. It's a textbook case for a Confuse tag. I think it's clear enough as it is.--Cúchullaint/c03:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks like we’ve come up with a near-ideal solution to the Topic-Confusion problem. Yaayy!
Now on to the Redirect question...
Template:Confuse or Template:Distinguish says “This hatnote is generally used when there is an ambiguity … that can be reasonably assumed to exist for a [substantial] portion of the readership.”
The most relevant definitions of “ambiguity” (from Webster’s Third):
“1a. The condition of admitting of two or more meanings, of being understood in more than one way, or of referring to two or more things at the same time.”
“2. A word or expression that can be understood in more than one way.”
The term “Matt Smith” can be understood in at least two ways, leading to at least two articles. Likewise the term “Treaty of Paris”.
But doesn’t the term “great ape” have only a single meaning?
“great ape. REVISED. Any of several large primates including the gorilla, orangutan, chimpanzee, and bonobo that have been grouped in a single family (Pongidae) but in recent classifications are typically placed in the same family (Hominidae) as humans.”
Webster’s Third (May 2015).
And the policy on Redirect hatnotes seems reasonably clear (at least to me).
Dervorguilla: as the hatnote says, the ambiguous article for "great apes" is Great Apes (novel) by Will Self. "Hominid" and "Hominids" are likewise ambiguous with novels of those titles that are covered on Wikipedia. We need a way to direct readers to those articles per WP:DAB.--Cúchullaint/c14:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, there is only one other article called "Hominid" (Hominid (novel)) and one called "Hominids" (covered at The Neanderthal Parallax). As I said some time ago, we could combine those two on one dab page, but they're really only partial title matches, and it seems like running readers through hoops to get to articles they want, just to trim a few characters from the hat note.--Cúchullaint/c19:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Planet of the Apes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reboot. 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.
Hi. I'm sorry, I didn't see you were an admin before reverting you. I wrote on the talk page for Anchor Baby the reasons for my edits.
The summary and the rest of the article had 2 different definitions of what is an anchor baby. The summary had it incorrect while the body has it correct. I was trying to get the two inline by changing the top. Also I wanted to add that the whole thing is a miss-conception on the part of the right, (who believe that undocumented immigrants can somehow use the baby's citizenship to 'anchor' themselves inside the U.S., and that this is a misconception, and propaganda. A myth basically spread by the anti-immigration lobby.
Since in reality there is no possible way to use the baby's US Citizenship to 'anchor' anybody, since a person must be over 21 years of age before being allowed to file the paperwork thus making the 2 citations from 10 years ago (when i guess such a thing was possible?) to no longer be correct.
Again sorry for reverting you, but I couldn't find 'braking citation', which i initially thought was a Wikipedia specific term I wasn't aware of. I now removed the 2 citations not inline with the current text. Please let me know how you think it's best to polish/rephrase what's there if its too bulky. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Meishern - That was an autocorrect error - should have been "breaking citation". The reason I reverted you was because the inline citations were broken, which messed up the article formatting. It looks fine now.--Cúchullaint/c13:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Knanaya
Knanaya, you are wrong and perpetrating and aiding some sort of inter-religious hate. Misrepresenting cultural facts through non-existent fictional stories. It is only so much that one can do, if one doesn't want to read and simply do reverts. If you can find it in you the wisdom to change without being egotistic, do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.18.181 (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tutelo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seneca. 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.
