Jump to content

User talk:Cuchullain

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2600:1012:b068:9a8c:51ca:d45c:30df:bd0e (talk) at 00:25, 12 June 2017 (→‎Hello Cuchullain - question about RFC closure: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Click here to leave me a new message.

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...
"Cuchullain moved"
... you were recipient
no. 1381 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much, Gerda Arendt!--Cúchullain t/c 20:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saint-Lambert station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halifax (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) 10:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION

Please look in to the matter and read my edit summary . [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.79.74 (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Planet of the Apes (video game)

The article Planet of the Apes (video game) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Planet of the Apes (video game) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Manfred von Karma -- Manfred von Karma (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Planet of the Apes (video game), an article you GA nominated, has been reviewed

The article has been put on hold. You can check out the review here. Manfred (talk) 11:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Planet of the Apes (video game), an article you nominated for GA, has been reviewed again

Hello Cuchullain,

As per your request, the nomination was taken down. Although the article doesn't meet standards now, you can improve it and re-nominate it again. Suggestions on how have been made on the review. Manfred (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown railway station and Houston railway station

The next time you move British railway stations, please follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations). Thank you. Useddenim (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Useddenim, well, I didn't move those, I just nominated them to be moved and the consensus was for the names I proposed. I re-read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) when I proposed them, and it doesn't actually say to use that rather odd mid-phrase disambiguation. In fact, I find no actual guideline or consensus discussion that explains why that's done for some British stations. I've been told that style is used only when "that's how Network Rail styles those particular ambiguous station names when they conflict with other UK stations".[2] That clearly isn't the case with either of these stations that closed decades ago (and in fact, the Network Rail format would probably use towns or counties rather than (Scotland). Due to all that, the articles should be moved back, and perhaps it's worth a discussion to add some material on when and why disambiguation is added in the middle of the title in some cases.--Cúchullain t/c 13:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, you're right. The explanation is actually buried way down at the end of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK stations)#Disambiguation II. (It’s because {{Stnlink}} and {{S-line}} expect a certain syntax.) I guess editors who work on UK rail pages just “know” that, but yes, it should be clarified in the description. Useddenim (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Useddenim: Hmm. There needs to be a discussion about this, as currently there's little consistency across the board. Even within Scotland there's Stirling railway station, Scotland, Perth railway station, Scotland, Clunes railway station, Scotland, as well as Patna railway station (Scotland), Grange railway station (Banffshire), and then things like Bathgate (Upper) railway station, Bathgate (Lower) railway station, Newington (Edinburgh) railway station, and other variants. I'm not seeing any others that use "Xxx (Scotland) railway station". This is a problem that needs to be fixed; beyond the lack of consistency, the mid-phrase disambiguation is out of step with WP:DAB, and that shouldn't happen without a good reason. I'd thought that Amakuru's explanation that we use Network Rail styling to be a pretty good reason, but titling articles to suit templates isn't.
I'm going to suggest this: (1) we move these two stations back, as they've actually been through an RM that ended with the previous title, and (2) opening a new multi-move discussion with these and other relevant examples, informing TWP and other interested parties, and trying to hammer out some consistency.--Cúchullain t/c 14:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A few years ago all of the Scotland railway station titles were synchronized, so there’s evidently been some “page creep”. I would caution you, though, that a new multi-move discussion will probably be seen by WP:UKT as yet another attempt by Dicklyon et al. to impose their opinion onto the project. Useddenim (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And there was likely no opposition—or relevant discussion—to those page moves because no notification was posted to WP:UKT! Useddenim (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Useddenim Yes, I'm aware of how finicky train editors can be with these articles. Unfortunately, there's no avoiding the discussion now, since there's no consistency, even within articles that use mid-phrase parentheses (the above articles' edit histories suggests there never has been), and there's nothing we can point to to say why things should be one way or another. This is a problem when local projects start using an unwritten convention, especially when it doesn't jibe with the site-wide practice. Hopefully it will be take for what it is - an attempt to fix an issue.
Re the notification, both were listed in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trains/Article_alerts and the Scotland article alerts. It looks like the UK Trains project doesn't have its own alerts set up. I wouldn't have thought to post an additional notification to their page.--Cúchullain t/c 14:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I don't get to start the discussion today, it'll probably be next week. I'll make sure to notify you and the relevant projects.--Cúchullain t/c 14:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thanks for the ping. I agree that we need to get some conventions sorted out once and for all on this. As Cuchullain mentions above, my opinion (and I think the rule that was applied when most of these titles were set up) is that we should use the middle of the title disambiguator where Network Rail (or British Rail for defunct stations) do or did so, for example Sutton (Surrey) railway station; but that we should use a normal end of title disambiguator where there is no such NR disambiguator, for example Georgetown railway station (Scotland). Note that the infix disambiguators are those used by National Rail, which may differ from the locality disambiguator we would normally use if we were applying WP:UKPLACE - for example Sutton is usually denoted by its ceremonial county (London) rather than by its historical county of Surrey, but since National Rail call it "Sutton (Surrey)", so do we. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Amakuru. All that makes sense and it would probably be easy to add the clarification to WP:UKSTATION when we determine consensus. Unfortunately, I'm going to be out most of the rest of the week, so I'll wait till next week to get going. One more thing: should Houston (Scotland) railway station be moved back, since Georgetown has been?--Cúchullain t/c 17:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cuchullain: OK, thanks. And yes, I think since Houston railway station (Scotland) was the result of the RM, that should remain the title until a wider decision is made. I've moved it back. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: wrote: "a new multi-move discussion will probably be seen by WP:UKT as yet another attempt by Dicklyon et al. to impose their opinion onto the project." That's funny; I had nothing to do with this; consistency and conventions are not really my thing, so much as minor style items of capitalization and punctuation. I would think the project would be generally in favor of consistent naming conventions, but if they're not, it's not me that will be arguing with them. But thanks for dragging me into this. Dicklyon (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

added Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
removed ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR withdrawn

The request for arbitration in which you were involved has been withdrawn by the filing party. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in New Brunswick

I draw your attention to Talk:List of tallest buildings in New Brunswick#Requested move 22 May 2017 as you have prevuoulsy been involved in similar discussion.Djflem (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cuchullain - question about RFC closure

First off, I also posted this question at the help desk, but thought I would also personally notify you, as you have experience with the same issue/volunteer. Recently I had an RFC which was closed (inappropriately I feel) by user:WingedBladesOfGodric. When I went to his page and asked (very politely I might add) for an explanation, I was at first told "No - I see no need". Upon further inquiry, he agreed to explain the reason for his closure, and then promptly disregarded his commitment to do so. Further entreaties were met with radio silence. Here is a link to said discussion - My apologies for bothering you on your page, but how in the world do I find a reason for the closure to the RFC?? 2600:1012:B068:9A8C:51CA:D45C:30DF:BD0E (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cuchullain&oldid=785161097"