User talk:Cuchullain

Click here to leave me a new message.

Battle Creek station?

Are you aware of Battle Creek Station and do you know what Template {{Amtrak stations}} is for? Perhaps not. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

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.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

That works! Are you aware that renaming articles affects related templates? Will you be cleaning up later? Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

What templates is it affecting? The links all seem to work, at least as redirects.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:31, 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)

Yeah, sorry, I don't see where the problem is.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see, I need to update the template itself, correct? Yeah, I'll do that in a moment.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:50, 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)

I turned Battle Creek Station back into a redirect. Maybe you should move Battle Creek (Amtrak station) to Battle Creek station (Amtrak) or something. That will be easier because we have two other uses as well. For the rest of the articles, well, I am sure that admins have the capability to move dozens of articles at once. Epic Genius (talk) 21:13, 10 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).--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Station stuff

Since you participated in the RM discussion at Talk:Greenbelt Station#Requested move 7 February_2015, you may have thoughts worth commenting on at the related RFC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#RfC: some proper talkin' about station title conventions, including especially the survey at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#Simpler questions / concise survey. If so, please comment there. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're accusing me of at AN/I. Can you say what I'm still doing that you don't like? Dicklyon (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

City of Manchester Stadium move

Hi Cuchullain

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 - in association football we do not use sponsored names for stadiums or leagues etc. GiantSnowman 11:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• 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)
• Oppose. As has already been argued, long-standing convention is to avoid using temporary sponsored names for stadiums, like we also do for leagues. Two featured articles where this has long been the case are Valley Parade and Priestfield Stadium. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose (again). Invalid rationale, no valid arguments in favour of the move. Please all read WP:AT and/or the explanation at WP:official names. Andrewa (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: The general standards that usually apply on WP holds that if a ground has had a non-sponsored name in its past that is the one that should be used for the article name. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose and you guys might be interested in Talk:SWALEC Stadium#Requested move 25 March 2015 which is a similar case except that we are trying to get rid of an unwanted sponsorship name and restore the traditional name. User:BlackJack 07:36, 26 March 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)
• Oppose as the official name is not the WP:COMMONNAME. 73.222.28.191 (talk) 20:52, 5 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. --Cúchullain ^t/c 13:08, 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.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:54, 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 (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) 08:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-Arianism

Hello, Cuchullain! What do you think of the changes made to Semi-Arianism [2] (besides the spelling mistake)? I asked another editor, but s/he couldn't help. See User talk:Cplakidas#Semi-Arianism. CorinneSD (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi CorinneSD. Yes, the edit looks confused; looks like it's been reverted in the meantime.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

O.K. Good. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Jr. comma RfC

You're invited to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Guidance_on_commas_before_Jr._and_Sr. Dohn joe (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Knanaya

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.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Buellt etc

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.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:19, 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)

Emerald-wiki, yes, I'd say let's remove it from Buellt and just discuss at the Rhwng article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Done wrt Buellt and Cwmwd Deuddwr articles. Emerald (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks!--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

RM etc.

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)

Gee whiz, that's goofy. Please add me to the "ping" list, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Ha, another Faulkner fan coming out of the woodwork. Let's post a note on Talk:Ole Miss and pretend we're not canvassing. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 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)

You mean "Falkner". Drmies (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, that is the more "modern" way of spelling it, as evidenced by recent trends of Google ingrams. LOL Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:14, 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.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I kinda quit listening to metal after Iron Maiden's last album, which I consider to be Killers. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 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.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! :) 62.43.38.242 (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Station renaming

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)

I looked, but I didn't see those templates. I'll get on it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Template:MDM stations. Please check that it finally works. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I think JoshuSasori may be back

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)