User talk:Cuchullain/Archive 22

You may enjoy this

Found the correct modern spelling of Carn Gafallt for the Buellt page. Take a look. It's possibly the most useless a site page could be without failing WP:N. I mean, it must be notable. The word "special" is right there in the name... — LlywelynII 23:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Too funny. Any stub can be expanded, I suppose.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Re:Sockpuppetry

He continues to be a thorn in my side on FOUR move requests (Talk:The Great Mirror#Requested move, Talk:Gojoe: Spirit War Chronicle#Requested move, Talk:Taboo (1999 film)#Suggested move and Talk:The Downfall of Osen#Requested move 2), at least two of which he actually might derail. He is also micromanaging my edits to the article Outrage Beyond, where he has reverted my attempt to be specific in my citation of a source a total of 7 times.

This is enough to demonstrate the exact same pattern of harassment that got JoshuSasori blocked in the first place, so even if what the IP was saying was true and he is not a sockpuppet, his behaviour is still pretty bad. Any idea how to move forward? If he derails the above move requests, I think all but one of them could just be performed unilaterally given that they have actually received the support of all participants except for the anon who is hounding me, but ... what should I do? My request to get a range block was already rejected ...

elvenscout742 (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That's very disruptive. Have you added those to the SPI? It may be worth going back to ANI; I'll take a look at it in the morning.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The SPI was closed because (1) we can't use CheckUser to tie an IP (or multiple IPs) to a named user, (2) this means we don't have enough evidence and (3) the IP range is too broad for a range block. Adding more IPs hardly helps that situation. That's why I came here for advice on how to proceed. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It's clearly Joshu, and it's plainly disruptive, but unfortunately I can't deal with it at the moment. I can take a look at it in the morning (morning in Jacksonville, not sure what time it is for you). FWIW I think it's definitely justified to block the more recently used IPs, to collapse the sock double votes in the discussions, and to look into the possibility of semi-protection or smaller range blocks. If you think it needs action before then, go ahead and open up an ANI report, I'll support whatever remedies the other adminz feels are warranted.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay he hasn't subsided[1], and has continued to ask us to CheckUser him.[2] Even if he is not JoshuSasori this kind of harassment deserves a block... elvenscout742 (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I've started another ANI thread here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin

this close does not follow AT policy "Precision", and it is also against the advise of WP:MILMOS#NAME because by changing the descriptive part of the name from (air) to (RAF campaign) you have changed a neutral title into one which gives a British perspective.

Let us suppose that the air battle was better known than the land battle, which would be a more neutral name "Battle of Berlin (land)" or "Battle of Berlin (Soviet campaign)"?

Given these considerations will you alter your close? -- PBS (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. "RAF campaign" is far more precise than "air". You may have a point about the British POV, but as the article indicates, this was a British campaign. At any rate every other participant found the former title inadequate, and of the suggestions the new title appears to be the one that found the most support.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Whig_(British_political_party)

Please include in your closing statement your reasons for not moving the article. -- PBS (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Done.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Acronyms and Initialisms

Hi! Over at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Deprecation of disproportionate usage of "initialism" on Wikipedia a move request that you closed (Talk:List of acronyms#Suggested move)is being used as justification for a proposed deprecation of the term "initialism" in all Wikipedia articles. Would you care to comment at the Village pump and/or review the closing? I would have made the same decision as you did (if someone wants to change the title of "Elephant" to "Woozle", I would oppose that change, but if the change was made I would support changing "List of Elephants" to "List of Woozles" to match.), but given how much is being made of this I am considering a Wikipedia:Move review as a way to get a clearer consensus on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's too late to reverse my decision out of hand, since it involved a history merge and that can't undone without a considerable amount of work. The current article could be moved, but that shouldn't be done without another consensus being established through discussion. My experience with MR has led to believe it's pretty worthless, especially for this kind of thing. What I can do is add a closing rationale and have a look at the village pump discussion. Generally I'm not in favor of officially "deprecating" terminology; I feel such things should be decided on a case by case basis.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey!

Any chance you could get this one as well? I got Talk:Gojoe: Spirit War Chronicle. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

mememollymove

Thank you for your message. I'm not very familiar with the exact mechanics of proposing a move, and I was hoping that the move might be uncontroversial (as one of the few Wikipedia policies I'm familiar with encourages us to be bold). I've inserted a new section on talk:Mememolly as the page you linked described. I would appreciate it if you could keep helping me with this process, for instance: did I add the section correctly, and is there more that needs to be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtijn (talk • contribs) 09:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as moves go, in general, if there's been a previous discussion about the name of the article, consider that a change may be challenged, so it needs to be decided through community consensus. What you've done is perfect, it should be set now. Move discussions typically run for a few weeks, no shorter than 7 days (and there's a backlog right now). You may want add some evidence that this person is better known as "Molly Templeton" than "Mememolly" (for example a comparison of relevant Google News results). The last discussion was pretty quiet, so there may be a good case for a move.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

More underhanded activity, I'm afraid...

I recently performed a move on the page Yoko Ogawa.[3] JoshuSasori's sock then appeared yet again and requested it be moved back.[4] I understand that this is in theory a case of WP:BRD, but BRD assumes good faith and there clearly was no good faith in this case. I wanted to inform you immediately, but I was at a movie. In ictu oculi (who had previously requested that I let a similar move pass despite similar circumstances) voted against.[5] But then another user who I strongly suspect of being linked to JS, and who has only been on Wikipedia since about two days after JS got blocked, showed up and unilaterally finished the discussion.[6] I understand why we have BRD, but it clearly shouldn't be imposed in this case, especially by a non-admin/brand new account. What can be done? elvenscout742 (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks to me like another sockpuppet, though I'm surprised it wasn't noticed before now. The account was created two days after Joshu's block and the recent move behavior is suspicious. Have you let the blocking admin know (TParis)?--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I noticed it a while ago, when it suddenly showed up and reverted me (in an extremely unfriendly and awkward fashion) on The 47 Ronin (1941 film), and I informed TParis by e-mail, because I wasn't sure enough about it and, well, AGF. The reason I contacted you and not him here is that I'm more concerned with the immediate problem of what happened on this article: there was really no proper rationale for the move, especially given that IIO, who previously did the same thing as Mysterious Island on a different article, openly opposed this time. elvenscout742 (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• You appear to claim that Ogawa's name appears with macrons on her English-language books, but is that really true? Did you research Amazon to confirm this? See this and this for example. LittleBen (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Which English-language books? I see translations by other people. Anyway, her books using two different romanizations of her name indicates she doesn't have a preferred romanization style, so we should use the style preferred by the Wikipedia community. Anyway, why are you so concerned with that when the real issue is my being stalked/harassed by numerous sockpuppet accounts. And why did you bring this person up in an entirely unrelated discussion?[7] Are you trying to just make me shut up about MOS by bringing up this user's unpleasant behaviour (and apparently condoning it)?? I have legitimate concerns about hyphens (not macrons), which is an issue JoshuSasori never raised. Please explain why you think JoshuSasori was making progressive moves on MOS before "Elvenscout got him blocked"? elvenscout742 (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• This is how publishers write her name in English on authorized translations of her books. Surely you claimed in the edit summary of your move that this was not the case—do you have any references that justify your viewpoint? People should play nicely on Wikipedia, it takes two to fight or edit war. LittleBen (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
• <Quote>her books using two different romanizations of her name<Unquote>. Please provide links to recent authorized translations of her books that clearly show this. LittleBen (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT)I have the reference I already cited to a book written by her (not just "authorized") that has her name in roman letters on the cover -- spelled with a macron. Anyway, I am prepared to discuss macron usage with you and In ictu oculi, but not with sockpuppets who are following me around because their main accounts got blocked because of me. However, I must insist that you desist in claiming that JoshuSasori was some kind of sage and that I was in the wrong for "getting him blocked" (again, check the history: blocking him was proposed by two admins, I suggested a peace offering, JoshuSasori made another personal attack, and then he got blocked; I never asked that he be blocked). That kind of discussion is not constructive. And if you want to discuss minor niceties like the macron in this article, don't follow me to other users' talk pages, when I came here to discuss sockpuppets and personal attacks. elvenscout742 (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't see what is unfriendly or awkward about this request. It says "revert unfinished move - the page was renamed, then the redirect changed to redirect to a different page, however the editor forgot about incoming links. Mysterious Island (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)". I'm not sure what game is being played here, but I won't be a party to it. Mysterious Island (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You should have (1) contacted me and told me that my move was unfinished or (2) reverted my switching of the redirects so as to solve the problem immediately. Requesting that my move be reverted, without informing me, so that I might not be able to fix the move myself, was very bad form. The move itself was constructive and completely uncontroversial. elvenscout742 (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the move issue is minor beyond doing it while an RM was going on. The potential sock puppetry and hounding are far more serious.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. So what should I do? Open another SPI? elvenscout742 (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, let's re-open the SPI. Should be easier to handle with a registered account.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't you think it seems a bit ... pushy? if I open my third JoshuSasori SPI in about a month, especially considering I just admitted to you that I already suspected this new one weeks ago? I'm worried it looks like I'm grabbing at straws/looking for JoshuSasori socks (even if this user did already follow me and revert me at least twice). Would you mind opening this SPI and I'll present what evidence I have? elvenscout742 (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you are asking a Wikipedia admin to start a sockpuppet investigation on your behalf, so that you can evade scrutiny. Mysterious Island (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Elven, I started the SPI, but you shouldn't worry about this stuff when there's a case (and there is one). You're being hounded; everyone understands that. Please add your comments.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• I would define "underhanded activity" as POV-pushing (without doing adequate research), and edit warring. But I see that Mysterious Island is pretty knowledgeable about the local scene, and is making constructive edits. He or she doesn't look like an ignorant vandal to me. LittleBen (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not interested in the content dispute. I'm interested in the increasingly problematic sockpuppetry and disruption, which remains problematic even if the socks make some decent edits--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Is correcting content errors considered to be hounding and disruption? LittleBen (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Making some good edits doesn't excuse problem behavior. Examples of this behavior can be found in the rather lengthy SPI archives. Again, I'm not particularly interested in the content issues.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi#Requested move

Hello Cuchullain. I notice you've closed some move discussions, so I thought you might have some advice about the one above, which I am thinking of closing. It is a regular requested move, it was opened January 1 so it easily meets the 7-day requirement. In the move discussion there are 17 supports and 6 opposes (roughly) to move the page to Mahatma Gandhi. The page has been at its present title (Mohandas) for at least five years. Do you think the closer can exercise discretion to overlook the majority here? I'm reluctant to use a policy-based argument to override such a large numerical margin. The strongest policy argument against the move is probably WP:HONORIFIC. The people in the move discussion are sophisticated about the naming guideline. Per Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi/Page names of Gandhi articles in other encyclopedias, the other encyclopedias may laugh at us, but it looks like the people have spoken. Any comments? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There's definite reason for pause. While the common name evidence is compelling, another big part of WP:AT is neutrality in article titles, and of course that's a core policy as well. I'd regard an honorific like Mahatma as at least somewhat non-neutral, and I'd give the support votes that don't account for that part of the policy less consideration. In addition to that, unlike Mother Teresa for instance, it's clearly not as though Gandhi is rarely referred to without "Mahatma", as can be seen at literally every other encyclopedia. So, per the guideline on honorifics it really ought to be avoided even if it is more common than the alternatives. Finally, while the local consensus looks pretty compelling, some of the support votes would actually prefer or accept a move to "Mohandas Gandhi" or just "Gandhi". One could definitely make the case that the local consensus, where many participants cite COMMONNAME without accounting for the neutrality aspect of the title policy, and where some participants lean toward other names besides the proposed one, is insufficient to override the project-wide consensus behind the policies and guidelines. Hope that helps,--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful advice. Do you mind if I link to your comment in the actual move closure, assuming I do that? Essentially we would be telling people that they won't be able to get Mahatma Gandhi as the title unless WP:POVTITLE is changed. EdJohnston (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, feel free to quote me. I wouldn't take the current policy as forbidding "Mahatma Ghandi", but any consensus that develops needs to account that part of WP:AT, and not just WP:COMMONNAME.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh well. Another admin has now accepted the move request and the page is now at Mahatma Gandhi. EdJohnston (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable close, though definitely not what I would have done. I wonder if the discussion would have been different if the page were at just Mohandas Gandhi?--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:3 Words

Could you at least relist it? I see two supports and one oppose. How does the stats overcome support? --George Ho (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think relisting would have helped, considering there had been no input for 2 weeks, though we can certainly talk about it. The "stats overcome support" because WP:LOCALCONSENSUS doesn't override the project-wide consensus behind policies and guidelines such as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:AT. You admit yourself that the album is far more common a search topic than the song, which is the only other article that's actually ambiguously titled. It's also more common than Three Words (The X-Files). Your proposal is flawed, so the support votes that boil down to "support per nom" are not convincing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Scratch that, thinking about it my close feels too much like a WP:SUPERVOTE so I'll remove that and relist. Thanks, George.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

More Joshu IP RMs

I thought you handled that extremely well and equally advised Elvenscout well. The IPs are back. Even if a technical fix existed to rangeblock all Tokyo IPs from launching RMs for a week it probably wouldn't be advisable to use it. In the meantime could several admins, or even less than admins, be given green light to preemptively close what inevitably are going to be multi-daily disruptive RMs? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I asked TParis to block those IPs and I'll close the RMs if he doesn't. I think we're just going to have to do this until Joshu gets bored and gives up, though a range block might be fruitful if it can be done without collateral damage.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Goalpariya

Hello ! Thanks for closing discussion. Goalpariya status is actually ongoing matter of debate among current scholars, so its not appropiate at this point of time to go for language or dialect status. We in talk actually looking for a neutral point like "Goalpariya" by moving current disambiguation to Goalpariya (Disambiguation). Please advice regarding same. Thanks भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 05:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said, unfortunately there wasn't a consensus that the Goalpariya language/dialogue is really the primary topic, especially after the point that Goalpariya people was created. It may be worth returning to this after the dust settles on the new article a bit, and also considering a move to Goalpariya language, similarly to Scots language, which is likewise often considered a dialect of English rather than a distinct language.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Will do the same.Thanks ! भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 18:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cuchullain ! As per your advice i have requested page move to "Goalpariya language", it will great if you put your kind comments. Thanks ! भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 09:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested moves

Aren't requested moves with no consensus supposed to be relisted? Film Fan (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

No, they're just closed as "no consensus". Relisting is another option, but (assuming you're talking about Pink Floyd—The Wall) I didn't think it was worthwhile as there had been no comment for 5 days.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

So then what do I do now? There were no oppose votes so am I free to go ahead and make the move? It really should have been relisted... Film Fan (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you have to live with the (lack of) consensus in the discussion. No one supported your proposal, either, defaulting to the current status quo. Again, relisting is unlikely to have done anything, as it had been open for two weeks, with no comments for five days. You may want to bring it up again in the future, if you can show that the sources, consensus, or Wikipedia policy have changed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Aliso Creek (Orange County)

Hi Cúchullain. When you closed the move request at Talk:Aliso Creek (Orange County) did you actually mean to close the part of the proposal that related to List of neighborhoods and unincorporated communities in Orange County as no move? The reason I ask is that there appeared to be no opposition to this part of the proposal, particularly as other Orange Counties have neighborhoods and unincorporated communities. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I did, since there currently aren't any similar articles for other Orange Counties, meaning the title would still just redirect to the longer title. I take at least the "oppose" citing precision as an argument against that page. However, I'm happy to move the page when an ambiguous article is created.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hm, I think you're possibly wrong on this one, given that we have Category:Unincorporated communities in Orange County, Florida (not an article, but enough to cause confusion, surely), but I'll not lose much sleep over it, to be honest. We also, incidentally, have:

• Category:Populated places in Orange County, Indiana
• Category:Populated places in Orange County, New York
• Category:Populated places in Orange County, North Carolina
• Category:Populated places in Orange County, Texas
• Category:Populated places in Orange County, Vermont
• Category:Populated places in Orange County, Virginia

Skinsmoke (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

However, even if I moved the page, List of neighborhoods and unincorporated communities in Orange County would still redirect to the California article barring another ambiguous one. Anyone who clicked on that name, or somehow managed to type it in, would be taken to the California article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, you have a point. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Soap opera

Hi. Just a heads up as you were aware of the Black Caviar etc archive resets before new RMs issue before and probably should be aware for continuity; the Montreal IP user who first spotted Black Caviar caught one at Talk:Yui (singer) yesterday, I caught one at Talk:Cơm tấm 17 February. If you think my comment in any way inappropriate please tell me. I don't think that any action is required, as can't image there'll be a third quickly. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a heads up. It's really frustrating that he's continuing to game the system like that after how much crap he's gotten for it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Private Emails

Is there a way to send private emails? I have an amusing anecdote about the Osceola controversy I don't want to share publicly. Also, I see your a baseball fan too? I'll be in JAX for the FSU/UF baseball game in a couple of weeks! Modern Ha Sofer (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, under the "Toolbox" section to the left, there is a link to "Email this user". Feel free to email me any time. I do enjoy baseball, I also hope to go to that game if we're free, it's always a great event (though not as great as my Ospreys beating either team!)--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Cuchullain. Please check your email; 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.

MT Carney Move

Hi Bill -

I just noticed the MT Carney page was moved because the rough consensus was there wasn't enough source material to support the move. I'd like to request we look at this again because I think we're getting this wrong and doing a disservice to a living person. The use of MT Carney is actually quite consistent across all reputable sources including the New York Times and all the leading Hollywood publications. The list of sources originally given was made by someone very unfamiliar with those sources (listing The Hollywood Reporter as 'whatever that is' isn't exactly unbiased, and is inaccurate as well). They were also coming around to the perspective that I may have had a good point when the page was moved in what I felt was mid-discussion. This is a debate we've been having as recently as a day ago - was very surprised to see it moved.

The reason I am contacting you is that it is the first step of a review move. I have been editing on Wikipedia for a few years now but I am still a neophyte and have a lot to learn about how the various processes work. So please if you could help me along by advising me if I do something incorrectly I'd appreciate it. However I was taken aback that this was simply resolved when there were a good deal of excellent reasons not to move the page. Again, for people searching for MT Carney, they are going to be a bit confused when they get to M.T. Carney. It does not clarify her name, it only confuses it more. As a female executive making her way in a man's world it is her right to choose how to present her name publicly; by rigidly adhering to a standard (that we have rules to override) we're violating that right.

Please let me know your thoughts and if we can reconsider this move.

Respectfully, Wintertanager (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Wintertanager. I moved the article as it seemed clear to me that there wasn't an overwhelming consistency in how the initials are written in the sources, nor any pressing policy reason to keep the old styling. However, the preference of three of the four participants (everyone besides yourself) was to use "M. T." as that's the usual Wikipedia convention. As for the timing, well, RMs stay open for 7 days; this one had been open for two weeks already and I felt a consensus for a move had been established. I couldn't see going against the other users' preference unless there was a clear consistency in the sources. If you really feel strongly about it, you may want to collect your relevant sources and trying another RM later on.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Yes the consistency in resources actually seemed quite clear to me - I think it was 10/14 in favor of MT Carney, with some of the negatives including sources like zoominfo, etc. and one of the negatives including The Hollywood Reporter which was actually incorrect - they have only one article where they incorrectly list her as M.T. Carney, the rest are all MT. NY Times is the most reputable and uses MT. I do feel strongly about it so I will do a review move - contacting you was step 1. Appreciate all the time and thought put into this, but I really do believe we've got it wrong here, hence my need to persist. Thanks again and appreciate your help. Wintertanager (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend a move review. Even if the process wasn't hopelessly dysfunctional, overturning a close requires there be something out of process, and you'll be hard pressed to show that that's the case there. If you want a different result, I think your best bet will be to start another RM at a later date.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the source material clearly establishes a precedent for MT Carney; I am going to move forward with a move review. The notion of '3/4 in favor' is based on a very biased and erroneous initial review that both misrepresented some of the source material (The Hollywood Reporter) and undermined the legitimacy of the cited publications. The fact is the vast majority of resources - virtually all of them - support MT Carney, including the NY Times, LA Times, Bloomberg, Deadline, the Wrap, The Hollywood Reporter, and many more, with very few exceptions. The NY Times explicitly states " Ms. Carney goes by punctuation-free initials that stand for Marie Therese." WP:STAGENAME states to use "the name used most often to refer to a person in reliable sources is generally the one that should be used as the article title, even if it is not their 'real' name". So I'm afraid I'm at a loss to understand the argument to move based on 'there wasn't an overwhelming consistency' when there clearly was. I notice also that someone has already added to the first sentence of the entry "Marie Therese "M. T." Carney (sometimes styled MT Carney)" which is simply incorrect and confusing to boot. This individual wishes to style her name as MT Carney; she has that freedom and we should respect it. Wikipedia has built in rules to allow precisely for circumstances such as these. I feel obligated to continue to pursue the issue. Respectfully, Wintertanager (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Do what you want, but you should know that WP:MR is a totally dysfunctional process that has never overturned a close, and this case is even less likely to be the exception considering the decision was well within my purview.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, sorry I misunderstood. I didn't realize you meant review move was a dysfunctional process. I really do appreciate you letting me know it is a waste of time and I won't bother then. I guess all I can do is just ask you in good faith whether or not you would be willing to take a second, careful look at the thread - if you still feel the same way thereafter, what more can I do? Thanks again for your consideration of these issues, Bill. Respectfully, Wintertanager (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't mean to discourage you from taking action if you wish, just that especially in a case that's more about content than process MR is exceedingly unlikely to make any difference. Of course you can pursue that option, but the truth is the process has never overturned a close. I've taken a second (actually third or forth) look at the discussion; from a policy standpoint I continue to believe the support votes were much stronger than you're giving them credit for. Personally, I think your strongest argument is that the NYT article specifically says she writes the initials without punctuation, though the article doesn't write it as "MT", but as "M T" with a space, so even there there's inconsistency with other sources. I think your best bet will be to wait a while, and if your feelings haven't changed to start up a new RM and try to establish a consensus for your preferred style at a later date.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Bill will do. Appreciate you taking another look and also giving me tips - you're not discouraging me just saving me from wasted time and effort, so thanks! Best, Wintertanager (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sidney Green (basketball), 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) 12:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Knanaya

Seen your talk page post re: contributions of PalakkappillyAchayan. There is nothing unusual there: alas, that contributor is one to watch. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've gone back over some of their past edits and found a few things that need to be changed. I'll keep my eye out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There is 99% certain COI at Varghese Payyappilly Palakkappilly, where I've had one heck of a time of it over the last few months. I'm just cleaning up again now but the talk page makes interesting reading. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Riverside and Avondale

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Jacksonville Navigation Boxes

I wanted to get your opinion on my revision of Template:Neighborhoods of Jacksonville, Florida. I changed Old City and Outer to something a little more universal. I'm trying to get Jacksonville's navigation boxes closer in line with larger cities like San Francisco. The boxes it has are little easier to navigate and they offer the opportunity to include more information. Let me know what you think.Mathew105601 (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I like where you're going with it, but it has the same problems as before with what to do with the "sides". For instance several "central" neighborhoods are generally considered part of the West, North, or Southside, but you have all the sides listed as "outlying". Additionally, the division may not be the most accurate, as the "outlying" neighborhood of Lake Shore is actually more "central" than, for instance, Ortega.

One possibility may be to go back to the "Old City" and "Suburbs" divisions, but to include the four "Sides" (Northside, Arlington, Southside, and Westside) in their own section. That way we could avoid the issue of the sides having both urban and suburban areas (and avoid having to classify neighborhoods as part of a specific "side" since it isn't always consistent).--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Changed... Better?Mathew105601 (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think it looks good. I changed a few things (adding some links, removing Nocatee and the Deerwood Country Club). Good work.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

So do you think it is worthy of being applied to the neighborhood pages?--Mathew105601 (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. It's very informative. As we flesh out the articles we'll also flesh out the template.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

City of Jacksonville template problems

Somehow the City of Jacksonville Template and the Jacksonville template crossed over. I'm at a loss. If you visit the City of Jacksonville temp through the 'Category:Jacksonville, Florida navigational boxes' page it is the original. On the Jacksonville, Florida page it does not reflect some of the changes. There is no link to the city page at the top of the bar and when you click v or e it takes you to the Jacksonville template. I'm confused, to say the least.--Mathew105601 (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the issue... can you show me diffs of what you've tried to change?--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Seoul Metropolitan Railway

Hi Cúchullain. Can you take a look at Talk:Seoul Metropolitan Railway#Move? and see if you can put a stop to the games being played? Skinsmoke (talk) 05:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it's been handled by Anthony Appleyard and Jenks24. Let me know if you see another issue arise.-Cúchullain ^t/c 12:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yes they have subsequently dealt with it. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism: Florida Gators football

Cooch, someone at MacDill Air Force Base is using five IP addresses registered to the U.S. Air Force to intentionally insert false information into the Florida Gators football article. I have reverted the vandalism edits with explicit edit summaries, and I also left vandalism warnings on the talk pages of each of the IP addresses. Looks like this is ripe for admin action if the vandal continues. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure does. I'll keep an eye on it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

University of Florida - Flagship Status

I understand the fervor this subject normally causes, but I believe the Flagship term may be appropriate to restore to the University of Florida article. The State University System of Florida's Board of Governors designates the University of Florida its flagship university and uses the designation in its tuition and fees comparison with peer universities. - http://www.flbog.edu/about/_doc/budget/tuition/2012-13-College-Board-Tuition-and-Fees-By-State.pdf and http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZepgGihedlAJ:www.flbog.edu/about/_doc/budget/tuition/2012-13-College-Board-National-Tuition-and-Fees-Comparison.xlsx+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us.

The Florida House of Representatives has called it "the flagship university of the State of Florida" - http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg42964/pdf/CHRG-110hhrg42964.pdf.

The Florida Department of Education designated it "the state's flagship institution". http://www.fldoe.org/news/2003/2003_10_10-2.asp

These sources seem more reliable/authoritative than the newspaper articles previously used as citations. PalmaCeiaJD (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Those are all just examples of people calling it the flagship. It isn't designated as such by the state, which now avoids putting the universities in tiers or levels. The closest it comes is that the legislature designated UF, FSU, and USF as the state's "research flagships" meaning they get all sorts of assistance for doing research. Otherwise, "flagship" means nothing in Florida and it's essentially WP:BOOSTERISM, which should be avoided.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Flagship Universities - Contentious Debate

Bill,

Would you mind taking a look at this debate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flagship#Listing_.22flagship_universities.22_is_a_bad_idea

This kind of list will be the continuing source of substantial issues on Wikipedia and culminate in a predictable expression of WP:BOOSTERISM and worse. The Univ of FL will never be declared "flagship" university by the Florida Legislature. Florida has no official flagship university. Sirberus (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll look into it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Flemish - "no consensus"

Hello. You rated the move proposal at Talk:Flemish as "no consensus". I'm not sure to what extent you scrutinized the discussion, but I think you'll agree that there was a consensus that Flemish should be made a disambiguation page, though there was no consensus as to to whether the content of the current page should be at Flemish (language), Flemish (Belgian Dutch) or something else. Thoughts? Oreo Priest ^talk 16:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the whole thing was very confused due to Kwami's moves. However there were a number of people who opposed, at at least one (Born2cycle) who specifically opposed a move away from Flemish. I'm amenable to reopening it but I think what we're really looking at is another discussion, specifically about moving the article from Flemish to something else, and replacing it with the dab page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Bullying

You have to understand, "riksdag" is NOT a name and is NOT used exclusively for the Swedish parliament, not even in English just because that is your interpretation of the statistics. Also, I am not the same as someone else even if I use the same computer as someone with the same opinion. I think you are harrasing me. 891 mm (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It's highly problematic to recruit people "with the same opinion" to stack votes in your favor, just as it's a problem to create multiple accounts yourself to give the illusion of more support. Please see WP:MEATPUPPETRY which is treated as a form of sock puppetry.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Same old

FYI

• today, actually this is in a separate category like the Ugetsu Monogatari RM, probably shouldn't confuse it with the examples below.

And ten reverting SalvioGiuliano

• 08:48, 22 December 2012 An Tư ‎ (Kauffner moved page An Tư to An Tu over redirect: rvt to consensus version for over a year. this is the usual format for vietnamese bios) (current)
• 08:43, 22 December 2012 Lê Quát ‎ (Kauffner moved page Lê Quát to Le Quat over redirect: rvt to consensus version for over a year. this is the usual format for vietnamese bios) (current)
• 08:36, 22 December 2012 Lê Văn Hưu (Kauffner moved page Lê Văn Hưu to Le Van Huu over redirect: Rvt to consensus version for over a year. This is the usual format for vietnamese bios) (current)
• 08:16, 22 December 2012 Hoàn Lão ‎ (Kauffner moved page Hoàn Lão to Hoan Lao over redirect: rm vietnamese diacritics per Vietnamese news agency, WP:VIETCON) (current)
• 08:13, 22 December 2012 Thuận Hóa ‎ (Kauffner moved page Thuận Hóa to Thuan Hoa over redirect: rvt to consensus title for over a year) (current)
• 08:10, 22 December 2012 Trần Liễu (Kauffner moved page Trần Liễu to Tran Lieu over redirect: Rvt to the consensus title for over a year, usual format for Vietnamese bio) (current)
• 08:09, 22 December 2012 Trần Ích Tắc ‎ (Kauffner moved page Trần Ích Tắc to Tran Ich Tac over redirect: Rvt to the consensus for over a year) (current)
• 08:02, 22 December 2012 Mạc Đăng Dung (Kauffner moved page Mạc Đăng Dung to Mac Dang Dung over redirect: Rvt to what was the consensus title for over a year) (current)
• 07:59, 22 December 2012 Lý Huệ Tông (Kauffner moved page Lý Huệ Tông to Ly Hue Tong over redirect: rvt to consensus title) (current)
• 07:58, 22 December 2012 Lê Văn Duyệt (Kauffner moved page Lê Văn Duyệt to Le Van Duyet over redirect: rvt to consensus title) (current)

Also moved a 2nd time counter RM Talk:Thanh Hoa also counter the 23:16 (or 23:10 without canvassing) RfC in favour of Vietnamese names.

I'm not sure if there are others or not. I haven't been keeping track of the db-G6 route. Do you have any advice? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I must have missed this over Easter. If you could trouble yourself to provide diffs showing previous RMs that he's ignored in his moves, I'll happily move them. And if there are any cases where he's blocked moves by editing redirects, I'd like a look at them. Otherwise, RMs pointing out his undiscussed moves will probably be in order.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I reverted Thanh Hoa due to the previous RM and Việt Nam sử lược since it's recent (and Kauffner's title looked to be pretty weak). I'm not seeing previous discussion at the others, and seeing as how it was three months ago, I don't think they should be moved again without discussion. My recommendation would be to start a new RM or RMs and putting it up to the community if you don't like the current title. If I'm missing some other evidence of problem behavior, please let me know.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry not to get back to you earlier. I just noted the restore of Thanh Hoa as, obviously, it's on my watchlist. No as far as I can see there's been no redirect edits, though I'm trying not to watch, it's debilitating. The dozen article moves above were db-G6 actioned after the Talk:Can Tho RM by SalvioGiuliano, after discussion on something else I mentioned them, Salvio reverted his db-G6, they were reverted straight back a day or so later. The energy involved in restoring such moves is such that I probably won't bother, or pick something more important. Thanks for restoring the history book as well. Take care. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It's an unfortunate situation, but barring some clear direction at the MOS or the articles being included in a previous RM or other discussion, there's really nothing wrong with moving them besides it being a dickish waste of time. I've argued that the workload and controversy created by these thousands of moves, not to mention the underhanded behavior, is disruptive to the project, but Kauffner seems to have kind of a charmed life and has always avoided sanctions. If you want them moved there's no harm in starting RMs (or a bulk RM) to bring it to the community.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I must say that the advice to "take to an RM" would sound more sincere if you weren't reverting my RMs as well. So you are generally at war with the entire concept of English-language titling? I figure it's either that or a vendetta. The Vietnam RFC was a big mess full of name calling and personal accusations. IIO repeatedly denounced it while it was going on and disrupted it with enormous photo galleries. It was closed as "no consensus" -- and no one appointed IIO to count the votes. Kauffner (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Starting an RM at an article you know to be controversial, rather than just unilaterally moving it, is the standard practice. For editors who aren't Kauffner, I don't usually have to add the caveat "don't start another poorly thought out RM immediately after the previous one closed without even bothering to talk to the closer."--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

With IIO following me around and complaining, is there any edit I could make that isn't "controversial"? I hope all the Latin speakers on English Wiki appreciate your efforts. Kauffner (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

For starters, you could assemble your evidence and then start an RM when you think a challengeable should be made, rather than making thousands of undiscussed moves. If you really want to go out on a limb you could start working on articles rather than working yourself up over the title.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't know what I articles I work on, and I want to keep that way. IIO plays this game too, and tries to provoke me into listing my Wiki-accomplishments. I have no interest in providing information that would make it easier to harass me. IIO knows I write articles. He's trying to get rid of one of them. Kauffner (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Scrutinizing your edits is not harassment. I hope you're not implying you're using sockpuppets to avoid scrutiny.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Neitmi !vote AN

Question - was your !vote on the last section in the WP:AN discussion on Neitmi sanctions an "Oppose" to both an interaction ban and civility parole, or just civility parole? I'm trying to close as accurately as possible.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Both. The interaction ban is unnecessary as both parties have agreed to back off, and "civility parole" is pointless.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Cuchullain. Please check your email; 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.— BDD (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Time in Malta

Hi. I saw you closed Talk:Time in Malta as no consensus. I was wondering if you would reconsider. As I said at the RM I would have been willing to close as moved and would have done so you if you hadn't got there first. An article about time in Malta (albeit a pretty poor one) does exist at Europe/Malta and, of the two opposes, one stated that he would be willing to see it moved if an article was created (which it has) and the other opposed mainly because the previous article had been deleted, but he probably missed that it was deleted G4, not because there was actually anything wrong with the article. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'm happy to reopen it for more discussion or allow you to exercise your judgement. I largely closed because it was in the backlog with no new input for days, and I don't like the prospect of "Time in Malta" being left as a perpetual redirect to the band if no article is created. However, I'll leave it to you if you'd like.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, really appreciate it. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Downtown Jacksonville

Some I'm going to take up the argument that the district name "Downtown Core" should be converted to Northbank or Northbank Core. My argument is that on the ground there is no reference to the Downtown Core. There are plenty of signs indicating Northbank. I also believe a few sources cite it as such. It is important to include the name Downtown Core, but I think it is more a descriptive title to the area that most people refer to as the Northbank. Also, if I made a pages for the sub-districts of Riverfront, Cathedral, and Central Civic, would you delete them? --Mathew105601 (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure what to do with it. The problem is we have several competing definitions of "Downtown" in common use in the sources. There's the broader definition of Downtown including the historic city center plus Lavilla, Brooklyn, etc. Then there's the smaller definition that just includes the historical downtown; different sources call that different things. Wood's Jacksonville's Architectural Heritage just calls it "Downtown" and has separate sections for Brooklyn and Lavilla (it doesn't discuss the Southbank or Sports Complex separately). In most contexts, COJ sources just call it "Downtown" as well. I called it "Downtown Core" because that's what appeared in the DVI source. The city master plan has the "Central Civic Core" along with several other districts, but really, it's talking about the same area as all the others with a few particular parts distinguished. A lot of people would call this the "Northbank", but honestly, I haven't seen many sources using that, and that's what matters on Wikipedia.

I would strongly suggest you not created separate articles for the "Central Civic Core District", "Riverfront", etc. There just aren't going to be enough independent, reliable sources for them and they're not really commonly known or used outside of that city master plan. I expect you don't want articles on the "Institutional District", "Church District", or "River Park District". Hell, the COJ itself can't even find a consistent name for the "Riverfront District"/"East Bay District"/"E-Town Zone)". It's not a great idea to rely on a 13-year-old master plan for common names or notability. I'm also not a fan of just starting an article that has no real prospect of improving any time soon, and that won't happen with these unless some real sources are published.

It may be worthwhile creating a separate article for the traditional downtown, which could discuss the minor sub-districts (that are notable). However, I'm not sure what to call it; I'd hesitate to call it the "Northbank" without seeing some sources that really use that. We're also really starting to run into duplication issues here. Already we have Brooklyn material discussed at Neighborhoods of Jacksonville, Downtown Jacksonville and now a distinct article. The problem would be even worse for an article on the downtown core.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion on Bluerules

Cuchullain, if you have the time, do you mind if you can take a look at the thread on Bluerules at ANI? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, Bbb23's got it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Good. Let me know if you need any more help.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Cuchullain. You have new messages at Buaidh's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asheville

One of my favorite cities. My brother lives a little over an hour from there. If I could retire in the US I'd live there. Dougweller (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Me too! My family has a vacation place there so I try to get up as much as possible. If my wife and I move from Jacksonville that would be the first place on our list to live.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Metropolitan area move requests

I have added clarifications to my move requests at:

1. Talk:Billings Metropolitan Area#Requested move
2. Talk:Brunswick metropolitan area#Requested move
3. Talk:Dayton metropolitan area#Requested move 2
4. Talk:Pensacola metropolitan area#Requested move 2
5. Talk:Portland metropolitan area#Requested move
6. Talk:Savannah metropolitan area#Requested move
7. Talk:Tallahassee metropolitan area#Requested move

You may still oppose these moves, although I hope you will find them acceptable. Yours aye,  Buaidh  18:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Buaidh. Just to clarify, I certainly don't think you're doing anything wrong even if I disagree with you.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think our disagreement concerns brevity versus clarity. Without a state name in the title, most of these metropolitan area titles have little or no meaning for users who live outside the United States. Only the most populous and famous metropolitan areas are well enough known outside the U.S. that they don't require a state name. In general, these most populous metropolitan areas have a principal city article that also does not require a state name. We can use #REDIRECTs, but it is certainly better if the article title itself is sufficiently clear to be understood by users around the world. My two bits. Yours aye,  Buaidh  18:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

PS – Part of this may be generational. Those of us born in the first half of the Twentieth Century generally prefer clarity before brevity, while those born in the second half seem to generally prefer brevity before clarity. The kids of the Twenty-first Century will think all of us deluded.  Buaidh  19:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Haha, it will be me having this discussion with the whippersnappers on Wikipedia2050. I think a large part of the argument in favor of concision (other than WP:NAMINGCRITERIA) is that in every case I've checked, the shorter name is actually more common in the sources, while the proposed title is much less common and often quite rare. Outside of Wikipedia they appear to be much more established than what's proposed. Additionally, if someone doesn't know what "Pensacola" is, adding "Florida" isn't is unlikely to make things more edifying for them. I just don't think the proposal adds anything but unhelpful wordiness.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Standard English language usage dictates use of the proper name in the first invocation and abbreviations and foreshortened names in subsequent invocations. By this rule, virtually all searches will turn up abbreviations and foreshortened names. Most commonly, I use the term "the area" for my own metropolitan area. Perhaps we should use "The area" as the title for all metropolitan and micropolitan areas. Yours sarcastically,  Buaidh  22:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, I do understand your point of view. I just think it unnecessarily confuses users. Nonstandard titles also create extra work for those of us who maintain population tables and census data. Long ago, we adopted standard titles for cities and towns. I don't see why the same rules should not apply to (most) metropolitan areas. Yours aye,  Buaidh  20:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I hear you, but WP:USPLACE is far from universally accepted, and I don't see the need to force those conventions on to other articles. And either way we don't want to create more confusion for readers, or more work for content editors, by putting articles at names that aren't used by any other sources in order to force arbitrary consistency.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Nasrani

Hi,

Please check and do the needful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nasrani

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasrani_(disambiguation)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasrani

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Thomas_Christians

Many Thanks..— Preceding unsigned comment added by PalakkappillyAchayan (talk • contribs)

Thanks. It took me a minute to tell what you were asking about. In my opinion "Nasrani" needs to stay redirected to Saint Thomas Christians.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Bullying#This reversion

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Bullying#This reversion. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)

After your comment above that "WP:USPLACE is far from universally accepted," I thought I should do a survey to see the extent of non-compliance with the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Of all the city and town articles for the United States, the only article title that I could find that was not in strict compliance with the Wikipedia geographic naming conventions was Phoenix, Arizona. While Phoenix is one of the 30 U.S. cities cited by the Associated Press Stylebook for stand alone datelines, it is in conflict with Phoenix (mythology), so Phoenix is a disambiguation page. I can find no other non-conforming U.S. place names other than the metropolitan and micropolitan area titles that you unilaterally decided to shorten.

I find no reason that the U.S. metropolitan and micropolitan area article titles should not comply with the Wikipedia geographic naming conventions. I have no problem with locally accepted nicknames such as the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex as long as they are properly linked. I have a major problem with titles such as the Portland metropolitan area that have multiple interpretations. Yours aye,  Buaidh  19:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of any articles on cities specifically that aren't in "compliance", as the exceptions have been written into the guideline (the AP Stylebook and primary topic exceptions). However, not everyone favors the guideline and there's always substantial support for eschewing it whenever it comes up. For instance, in October I closed an RM at Beverly Hills, California where there was surprising support removing the state name. Additionally, the guideline says nothing whatsoever about metro areas and similar subjects that aren't cities and towns. For example there's no agreement about how to title articles on neighborhoods within cities, which comes up regularly. In other words, there are no conventions relevant to metro areas - and certainly nothing that supports or requires your proposed titles - beyond the standard WP:AT policy. In fact, in most cases I saw they actually broke with WP:COMMONNAME, as few if any other sources used them.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a very sophistic argument.  Buaidh  19:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No, not really. It boils down to using the common name unless there's a pressing reason not to. In my opinion, your "reason not to" is based on your personal preferences rather than anything found in practice or policy, let alone sources outside of Wikipedia.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Red Bank Plantation House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palatka (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) 01:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Your Body (Christina Aguilera song)

Four opposes and one very contested and objected Support. Explain your logic to me please.  — AARON • ^TALK 14:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course. For starters, local consensus at one RM does not override the project-wide consensus. None of the oppose votes accounted for the nominator's evidence that the Aguilera song has been viewed over 30 times more than the only other ambiguous article, making it the clear primary topic. As such, I gave them less consideration in the close (and I gave even less to those that did not include an actual reason). I'm more than happy to discuss this with you, but move warring is not an option.--Cúchullain ^t/c

And I have replied to where you kept edit conflicting me, as you chose to reply there first.  — AARON • ^TALK 15:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Per the WP:RMCI: "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions." In this case there is clear, project-wide consensus that primary topics generally go at the name, with other uses found through disambiguation. In this case no one gave a reason for overlooking that besides personal preference. How would you like to proceed? Would you like me to re-open the discussion?--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you are more than happy to continue this discussion, as you said, then let me reply. User:In ictu oculi said "Your Body (Pretty Ricky song) may not get the same number of hits, but the title is still somewhat generic even allowing for a capital B. No harm done to anyone by making it clear either in Google headline or in the RH search box autocomplete that this is the song they are looking for." Myself and others support this notion, resulting in an oppose of the move. Songs with the same name always have the disambiguation to make them easier to find. See Trouble songs, Happy (disambiguation) songs, Skin (disambiguation) songs. So do once again explain your logic. Yes I would like to re-open the discussion, as clearly our votes had no value last time round.  — AARON • ^TALK 15:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am happy to discuss this with you, but please drop the attitude. I am aware of what In ictu said, however it's really just personal preference rather than the guidelines, and he all but admitted that the Aguilera song was the primary topic anyway. As the closer, I gave less consideration to that response than the ones that gave actual evidence in terms of the applicable guidelines and conventions. I also gave less consideration to the responses, like yours, that gave no reasoning beyond agreeing with that sentiment. This is not a straight vote. On the other hand, the two supporters appealed to an actual guideline and gave evidence to support it, which is much more compelling. However, since you disagree I'll reopen and relist the discussion to get more input.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Because my opinion is the same as his. Doesn't mean mine or anyone else oppose is worth less. And as far as I can see, there is one Support, not two. So you've chosen to ignore what I said about Trouble, Happy and Skin because you can't argue the point and have seen that I am right?  — AARON • ^TALK 15:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

In a word, no. It's irrelevant to the discussion. In this case, it's my responsibility to weigh the quality of the arguments, and yours were much much weaker than the two supports (the nominator and BDD). However, I've reopened the discussion so if you want to add anything to it you are free to do so.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Please move it back while the discussion is proceeding. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Apteva, I missed your comment yesterday. It looks like Anthony Appleyard has already moved it back.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

When I did not get any response I submitted it as a technical request. Apteva (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI

The word "encompassing" means "comprehending or including within" and does not imply exclusivity. Many metropolitan areas are not centered on their principal cities, including Boston, Dallas, and San Francisco.  Buaidh  21:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

JoshuaMatthewWilliamTaylor

He says this is his earlier account. That might be the case. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Fingallian

Thanks, I didn't know that about the 'move' - so much still to learn - and will use that feature in future. UtDicitur (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kaza, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman Turkish (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) 11:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Red Bank Plantation House

Hello! Your submission of Red Bank Plantation House at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)