User talk:Cuchullain/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Suggested bold move of Scott Miller (California musician)

Thanks very much for your action on Talk:Scott Miller (country musician)! I would gladly follow up with a bold move of Scott Miller (California musician)→ Scott Miller (pop musician), but I'm still very new and I've never moved a page. I'd very much appreciate your help, whether by doing it yourself, or with further guidance. Should I open a new RM? Best regards, Lwarrenwiki (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem. It shouldn't need a new RM as it's not controversial and there was support for it in the previous RM. The move function is located under the arrow immediately to the left of the search bar in most setups. Just click "move" and then type in the new name. If you need any further help just let me know.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Pheryllt

I'm getting a bit tired of this. Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that one's just silly. I'm going to redirect to Virgil with a little bit on his reputation as a magician in the Middle Ages.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Good move, thanks. Have we decided about Clas Myrddin? Dougweller (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we can add a section about the Names of the Isle of Britain to Welsh Triads, and redirect Clas Myrddin to that. I'll get to work on something when I have a chance.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sortes Vergilianae may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |accessdate= November 11, 2013}}</ref> The system seems to have been modeled on the ancient Roman] ''[[Sortes (ancient Rome)|sortes]]'' as seen in the ''[[Sortes Homericae]]'', and later the ''[[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

John Matthews

Hello, I saw your edit to Annwn regarding the Silver Branch motif and I want to thank you. It was my mistake as I did not realize that the Celtic Otherworld had a separate page. In regards to John Matthews though, you are wrong, for he is an utterly reliable source. Mr. Matthews is a world-renown historian, folklorist and author and has produced over ninety books on the Arthurian Legends. He is much in demand as a speaker both in Europe and the USA, he has taught at (among others) the Temenos Academy in London, St Hilda's College, Oxford, and at the New York Open Centre, The Omega Centre, and the University of Seattle in Washington. He has also worked in collaboration with the Joseph Campbell Foundation and Lorian Association. Bard Cadarn (talk) 14 November 2013) —Preceding undated comment added 20:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Bard Cadarn. I'm aware of what his personal website says, but John Matthews is certainly not a reliable source. He has no particular credentials or expertise in Celtic studies or related fields, and his work is not respected by the scholars. When his works are reviewed by scholars they are routinely ripped apart. There's no reason to use him as a source considering how many better sources are readily available for this material. I'm sure Dougweller could provide further insight.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

He's an author with an impressive CV, but not a historian. The book in question is published by Inner Traditions – Bear & Company which is hardly reliably publishing by our criteria. And you know, I can't find anything that shows he actually taught at the University of Seattle or St. Hilda's College. He did take part in a Tenemos conference at St. Hilda's. But actually employed by either of these? I doubt it and I can find no claims that he was. The odd lecture or two isn't 'teaching'. Dougweller (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

And more specifically concerning his 2 books on Celtic Shamanism, the Historical Dictionary of Shamanism by Graham Harvey(a Reader in religious studies) and Robert J. Wallis(academic archaeologist) say his "work has been scrutinized by such academics as Ronald Hutton, Leslie Ellen Jones, and Robert Wallis, who problematize, among other issues, the application of the term shaman to medieval sources that are enigmatic, incomplete, and often poorly translated. Jones comments on the contrast between Matthews's apparently accessible and "safe" practices vis-k-vis the more challenging, even dangerous, path of other indigenous shamanisms, and she dismisses his practices as lightweight and New Age. Wallis agrees, but adds that Celtic shamanism today is by no means singular and that there are practitioners who not only integrate their practices into the challenges of everyday life but also engage with the "dark side".

John Koch's Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopediasays "Current Celtic neo-pagan spirituality' is influenced by the belief that Celtic native religion was, and is, akin to that of contemporary indigenous or tribal groups. Thus, while Celtic myth, art, and literature arc utilized to 'reconstruct' religion, some copy and Celticize contemporary native peoples' practices, 'Celtic Shamanism' being one example of this trend (Matthews, Celtic Shaman)"

Roger Wallis's Shamans/Neo-Shamans: Ecstasies, Alternative Archaeologies and Contemporary Pagans says "While supernatural themes (discussed below) in these manuscripts at first glance provide some persuasive data for a form of Celtic shamanism, then, such interpretations are immediately thwarted by issues of the manuscripts' historic reliability, subject as they are to the lens of translation, confusing genealogy, questionable antiquity and the hands of Christian writers. Indeed, characters in the Hanes Taliesin are apparently deified from their human or semi-human origins: Ceridwen, for instance, appears in no other early Welsh literature; Hutton argues she was created for this tale alone and that the Gogynfeirdd turned her into a semi-deified muse. She has, more recenly and paradoxically, been fully deified by neo-Shamans as an archetypal Welsh pagan goddess." - And that comment about Ceridwen needs to go in a couple of articles at least. Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Just looked at Ceridwen and it does mention what Hutton says, although I'm not sure how accurately. I've got his new book Pagan Britain - he is very adamant that Rhiannon is not a horse goddess and that her only association with Epona is a horse, but our article says they are closely related (with a source). He is also very dubious about claims such as "Her name appears to derive from the reconstructed earlier Brittonic form *Rigantona, meaning "great queen goddess"" saying there is "absolutely no evidence for a cult of *Rigantona and *Tigernos" (evidently the asterisks usually mean hypothetical words reconstructed by modern philologists). One problem is that although our article on Rhiannon doesn't say she was a goddess, virtually every other mention of her does. I removed her from Celtic pantheon, lets see if I get reverted. Dougweller (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

H-SC to R-MC distance

My odomometer trumps the source as I have driven it enumerable times and kept track of distance. Google Maps is being used as a source. There is no possible route that is only 78 miles.

The source you are using is wrong. Just because one publication states something doesn't make it factual. MorrisS (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on verifiability, not truth. At any rate, the source appears to be more accurate as it goes by the actual distance; going by road will give different distances depending on the road you take.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the actual distance would be 64 miles. The distance given in the article you cite is completely inaccurate.MorrisS (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I wonder where they got it from. At any rate the source can't be used to say the distance is 82 miles, since, well, that's not what it says.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

fair enough. It's close enough, too, so it doesn't really matter. MorrisS (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Preston University.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any .

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 13:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

US station naming conventions

Hi! You're being spammed because you've participated in the move discussion at Talk:Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line)#Requested move. I'm seeking input for a broader policy solution to US station name articles at User:Mackensen/Naming conventions (US stations) and I hope that you'll participate there. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Misleading information warning

Hello, please do not add misleading information into articles and talk pages regarding Canada's national American football team. As a team whose primary purpose is to participate in the IFAF (a tournament of American football), it is completely correct to refer to them as an "American football team". Any attempt otherwise is misleading and inaccurate. pbp 20:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not, as I explained. Let's keep the conversation on the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Your explanation is 100% wrong and, frankly by this point, disruptive. The team is constituted solely for playing American football, and to claim anything else is inaccurate. Can you provide a source that the national side has played one minute of Canadian football as a team, and that that belongs in the same article as the American one? If not, then it is perfectly acceptable to refer to it as "American football" rather than "football" or "gridiron football". Also, you need to remember globalization, my friend. pbp 22:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Look, you started this RM, the burden is on you to explain why this is a good idea, not on us to explain why it's not. Even still, I've given various good reasons why it's not - on the talk page, where it belongs. I think I've said about enough.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is your reasons aren't based in fact. For example, you claim that the team plays both American and Canadian football. Not accurate. The team has never played a down of Canadian football. Some of its players have played it in the offseason, but the team only plays American. pbp 14:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I've already addressed that on the talk page, where it belongs. We don't need to have the same conversation in two places.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you haven't addressed that. I made a comment beginning with "I don't know where you get the idea that this team plays Canadian football" and you never responded to it. In the meantime, there are factually inaccurate statements you have made on that talk page misleading other editors into opposing a perfectly sensible move request. pbp 14:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Dude, you just posted that last night, and that was after you accused me of "disruptive editing" for responding to your previous comments. It doesn't seem you want any response that doesn't agree with you. At any rate I'd probably be able to answer more quickly if you didn't keep asking the same questions in multiple places.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh hey

Hey, Cuchullain, just noticed that PBP didn't notify you, but he brought up the Canadian football team thing on ANI, where it got hatted. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I did notify him, then I removed the notice when it got hatted. Writ, Cuchullain is out of line here in that he's claiming a team that has never played anything but American football shouldn't be referred to as an "American football team" pbp 23:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed that, and was gonna go back in and strike that. Sorry. Still, though, I don't know what the official word is on this, but I would guess that it's better to leave the notification on there, even after it had been hatted. No comment on the rest, since I haven't looked at it all that closely at it, but I'll do so if you like. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, User:Writ Keeper. I appreciate knowing a discussion about me was opened even if it was shut down immediately. Clearly it's ridiculous for a nominator to call it "disruptive" when people participate in discussions they started and respond to comments they made. You're of course welcome to weigh in if you want.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Silver Springs (attraction), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Silver River (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) 08:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Question about Wikipedia edit records

Hello. Do you have any idea why Special:Contributions/198.255.137.67 currently shows no edits, despite the fact that this and this show edits by that IP? —BarrelProof (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe it's just a lag time for updates. The edit I just made for your Talk page isn't showing up (yet) in my own Contribution list either. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

My statement about page protection

I'd like you to know I had no intention of embarrassing or accusing you with my comment this morning on the Sarkeesian talk page. I was writing (perhaps too) quickly and was responding to your statement that "there haven't been any substantial changes in over a month." I jumped to the conclusion that one reason for the lack of changes was the chilling environment of semi-protection, which IMHO seemed to favor the views of registered over unregistered editors in a content dispute. So I was annoyed mildly by your action and parts of your opening merge statement. I'd suggest that in the future you avoid using your admin tools on any of the Sarkeesian pages to avoid the appearance of WP:INVOLVED. You are under no obligation to take my suggestion, but I feel compelled to suggest.

As to the larger issue of whether page protection was appropriate, I need point out that of the 66 revisions since page creation, roughly half of those were by the page creator and AfC reviewer, and only three were from ip editors. No compelling reason for page protection in my opinion. From protection policy: "Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred..."

Again, I have no personal axe to grind, and while you and I disagree about this specific, I hope we can agree in general as Wikpedians. BusterD (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I only didn't ask someone else to semi-protect it because it didn't occur to me that it would be remotely controversial. It's the same level of protection as the main article, where it was obviously considered necessary, and there had been a number of disruptive edits that week. Looking at it again, it may have been overkill as a lot of the problem material was coming from the SPA. I certainly wouldn't object if another admin wants to change the level of protection.

As for my comment on "substantial changes," I of course meant constructive changes. I don't think protection had much if any effect on that as the article was in the main space a month before that, and basically no real work has been done, even to copy over things that appear in the main article.

And yes, despite this handful of disagreements, all pretty minor in the final analysis, I think we generally agree on a great deal. Cheers and happy editing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I must concede I hadn't noticed the Sarkeesian article was under indef semi-protection since June. Please accept my apology for any confusion my failure to read page logs has caused. I still believe that on the merits, the series deserves pagespace even now. I have said in the past and still hold that it would easier to defend and improve the BLP space if the primary focus of discussion was on the product and not the author. BusterD (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd add that in my opinion, the negative and positive comment the series received after it was announced is especially relevant to the reception of the series, so far as discussing the history of the series and the accompanying controversy is concerned. I'd agree with you that in a section on the reaction to (or review of) the series itself material related to the controversy should not be applied. BusterD (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You have nothing to apologize for. Looking at the history again and seeing that most of those problem edits were coming from Nosepea, the protection looks to have been less pressing at the time. Though I think ultimately anyone would have made the same call after seeing what happened at the main article before it was protected, what continues to happen on the talk page, and what seemed to be starting to happen at the series article.

On the merge discussion, we can of course agree to disagree, and if the consensus is ultimately to keep them separate, I'll certainly commit to helping it along. My biggest issue is really logistical, as someone who has put a lot of effort here. We already have pretty solid coverage of the controversy and the video series in the Sarkeesian article; its frustrating to me that we then have a fork that just says the exact same things, especially as no one has kept it up even to the level of coverage at the main article. Even with the two professional reviews (both of which only review the first video), I just don't see there being so much coverage of the video series itself that a separate article is necessary to provide the best encyclopedic coverage of the entire picture.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Cúchullain could you please elaborate what you mean about my problem edits? Ones on Sarkeesian BLP or the TvW article. And please be specific. I did do some angry edits at the start on BLP, but I never stated anything I think outside of the facts (sorry, English not my mother tongue, so here might be a small issue of semantics). IMHO I haven't been biased on stuff I put in TvW article, overtly specific I can admit, but biased not, in regards of what I have put into the TvW article. Nosepea68 (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You may be correct at the present time. But when more reviews arrive (and they will), we'll need a place to host that discussion. I'd prefer to do that in the context of the series, not the individual. BusterD (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It's possible, but at this point we're a year and a half removed from the controversy and nine months into the video series, and the sources we've got now are just about all there is in terms of the series. If it changes in the future I may change my tune, but for what we've got, I still think the main article provides the best encyclopedic coverage. It'll be interesting to see if Women & Language reviews more videos in the future; that review is easily the best source for the series so far.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated. Could I get you to look real quick at User talk:Mark Arsten? I've got a second ip vandal who needs blocking. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind. Floquenbeam got it. BusterD (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

A Boy was Born

Did you notice that your close is not consistent with the parallel one, Nocturnal after John Dowland? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't see that. Though the consensus was clearly against it in that case, but was clearly for the move at A Boy Was Born.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Some things should not go by "consensus" but by reason. Can you say: "A Boy Was Born" was published? No. "A Boy was Born" was published, that is the common name by which the piece is known, commented, analyzed, performed. Will we eventually have Ludwig Van Beethoven because consensus is for house style? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from and can sympathize to an extent. However, it's clear both are in use. "was" is more common but "Was" is more in line with Wikipedia's style guidelines and was favored by the majority of people who participated. I don't see how the discussion could have been closed any other way.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you understand that I think there should be no discussion about the name of something? At the bottom of the piece there's a template listing the works by Benjamin Britten. They have the names published, with one exception. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand, however as in many cases the title is stylized differently by different sources. Discussion is how these decisions get made, and in this case most favored this style.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

English is not my first language, and I feel that I don't understand you. I am not talking sources, I talk published. Some sources are able to copy the published style, others are not. The main sources used for the article that I wrote (later helped by Alfietucker) are able. What will a reader think who compares these sources to the article, or compares a score to the article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

What I'm saying is, in the secondary sources, the work is written as both "A Boy was Born" and "A Boy Was Born". Conceivably it's also been written as "A BOY WAS BORN" and "A boy was born". This isn't a matter of different names, it's a matter of style, so Wikipedia's style guidelines need to be considered. In this case, "A Boy Was Born" is the style recommended by the guidelines and was favored by most participants.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I understood that before. I doesn't answer my question what a reader will think who compares to the score or the main secondary sources of that article. It also doesn't answer the question if we decide by majority to say Ludwig Van Beethoven because some secondary sources have it that way. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I highly doubt any reader will be confused or otherwise put off by the capitalization of "Was". I don't think it compares to Beethoven, where "van" is rarely if ever capitalized (and no one has ever proposed anything like that, anyway).--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you think any reader would be "confused or otherwise put off" by not capitalizing "was"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

ps: Britten --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No, they wouldn't, but that's not the stylization that was chosen.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The style chosen by the author (me) after (asking the main author of Benjamin Britten on the day of the centenary and) studying the sources was the style published, performed, analysed, known as the common name. At present the article is not in accordance with its sources and contains mistakes. The best way out seems to close the move request as no consensus. - I would prefer to look forward to Christmas, celebrating the boy who was born, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what else to tell you. There certainly was a consensus: the "Was" stylization was preferred by most participants in the discussions, is in use in sources for the topic, and better fits Wikipedia's style guidelines. Any other admin would have closed it the same way. I'm sorry, but I don't see any call to change the close.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to tell me anything else, please listen. I started saying that the question should not be decided by voting. Did you hear me? - The article is wrong at present. If the move is not reverted, I will have to correct it. You can save us some time. - The admin of the other piece by Britten was able to close differently. I remember the discussion on Beethoven's 14th piano sonata, which many secondary sources have as Moonlight Sonata, - not a pleasant memory, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I heard you, and unfortunately that's just not the way it works on Wikipedia. At this stage your options to overturn the close are either move review, or waiting a while and starting another RM; both will require discussion, which you claim to want to avoid. In a move review, you'd have to show that the close was inconsistent with Wikipedia policy and the requested move closing instructions, which it wasn't; in an RM you'd have to gain consensus for your preferred stylization, despite the strong consensus against it in this past RM and the fact that it better fits Wikipedia's style guidelines. I don't really have anything else to say at this point.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

emailed

you. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Counting Stars RM reopened as multi-move

Hello Cuchullain

You recently participated in a WP:RM debate at Talk:Counting Stars (song)#Requested Move 2. This message is to inform you that I have closed that debate as no move, but I have reopened it as a potential multi-move request, after a majority of those participating in the discussion appeared to support that alternative. Please participate in the new debate at Talk:Counting Stars (song)#Requested Move 3 if you wish to do so. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

RM notification

I've created an RM for the naming of the Space Quest series. Since you participated in the Space Quest V RM, you may be interested in commenting on this proposal. --BDD (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Osceola and Renegade

Just a heads up. I modified one of your recent edits at Osceola and Renegade. I believe I can support that modification, with a longer explanation at the article Talk page, if you should disagree. Didn't want to appear like I was trying to sneak it in. Cheers. Gulbenk (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for Reverting

Hi, thank you for your help in reverting the actions of 2.123.214.37 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)): it is an anonymous vandal who vandalizes articles about cartoons and prehistoric animals by inserting incorrect information. With prehistoric animal articles in particular, it appears to refuse to believe that the Miocene or or Pliocene epochs exist, and adjusts accordingly, even though such edits are blatantly wrong. And once it is blocked for its disruptive edits, it then flees to a new IP in order to continue its disruptive edits.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Apokryltaros. It just rang false, so I reverted it. I'll keep an eye out for future edits like this.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Living Paths

Many thanks for your work on articles with a Welsh conection. Just thought I'd let you know that we have a project based on the Wales Coast Path, which is just kicking off and can be found here: Wikipedia:GLAM/Welcome to Llwybrau Byw! - Living Paths!. Do you know of any Arthurian related articles we can add to the list - even geo-tagg and plot? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I'll have to research a bit about the coast paths, it sounds like a really cool project. Without a doubt there are Arthurian connections with some of the places they pass through.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Cuchullain!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Cuchullain: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BusterD (talk) 06:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

You've got mail

It's me. It's not sockpuppetry if my computer's wifi connection is out, and trying to make logged in edits from my phone results in my getting automatically logged out mid-edit half the time, and I'm completely open about it. Anyway, check your inbox. 182.249.240.5 (talk) 08:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hjr88 again

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.

List of colleges and universities

I'm pulling my hair out trying to figure out why other college listing pages categorize in a different way then the Jacksonville page. For example; List of colleges and universities in metropolitan Atlanta is listed on the category page for colleges in the city, but it is not alphabetized, it appears at the beginning of the list. Jacksonville's is listed under "L". Furthermore, Most other college listing pages show up when searched in google. Jacksonville's category page appears, but the list page does not. It's as if there is a hidden rating system. I feel I am missing something. Mathew105601 (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I feel like a goof after seeing how easy that was. You are the boom. Mathew105601 (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Ha, no worries. It's not very intuitive. The basic outline is, if you add pipe link to a category, the article will show up as that term instead of the actual title; typing [[Category:Lists of universities and colleges in the United States by city|Jacksonville]] places it under "Jacksonville" in that category. Piping a blank space places the article before the alphabetized section in a category: [[Category:Universities and colleges in Jacksonville, Florida| ]]. That's useful when the article/list is the main topic for that particular category, although at this point categories have become far too complicated to actually be useful to anyone.

As for Google, I can't help you. It seems to show up for me. I know their algorithms take into account how many visits and links a particular page has. Perhaps this change will affect it somehow. --Cúchullain ^t/c 14:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Stev(ph)en Milne

I truly don't understand. The parentheses work for me. I provided plenty of evidence. How can you say they serve no purpose? It's simply not true. How can I respect that closure? HiLo48 (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, HiLo48. As several users noted, the base names were already pointing to the versions with parentheses, so anyone who typed in or clicked on those terms was already being taken to the respective articles. In other words, if someone looking for the Aussie rules player happened to type Steven Milne, they would still be taken directly to the Scottish soccer player's article, not to the article they wanted (or a dab page). As such the parentheses weren't serving their function. In such cases a hat note is the way to get readers where they want to go. 5 editors supported the moves and only 2 opposed, and the support !votes had a better grounding in policy and practice.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You claimed in your closing note that "the parentheses are serving no purpose". That's simply not true. They work for me, so they DO serve a purpose. I explained how. Your closing note was just plain wrong. Again, how can I respect that closure? HiLo48 (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I stand by my close.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Including the completely incorrect statement? Makes you look silly. HiLo48 (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The statement is correct, as I explained, and yes, I stand by it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Astounding. I think administrators should have to pass a clear thinking and logic test before they get the gig. Goodnight. HiLo48 (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if you're on Facebook at all, but I didn't want to feel like I was talking behind your back

... especially since so many of your other edits are so very good.

But you were one of the editors I was thinking of when I made this post to Facebook about The Road. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The link's not working for me. I assume this is about the sci fi categorization? At any rate thanks for letting me know.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Move review of Sweet Nothing (song)

I think that in view of the result at Talk:Sweet Nothing (song)#Requested move 2, we should consider a move review of Talk:Sweet Nothing (song)#Requested move 1 which you closed. Your thoughts? Andrewa (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a bad idea, as it's been nearly a year and a half. I don't think the move review process was ever intended to be used so long after the fact, especially when other formal move discussions have occurred at the page. Frankly, MR has limited usefulness under the best conditions, and at this point trends in consensus and even guidelines will have been modified. If a title change is sought it should be through a community discussion on its current merits at RM, where it will be much more visible, rather than through a pretty backwater bureaucratic process.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Good points. I will consider raising a new RM instead. Andrewa (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. It will definitely have a larger and wider audience than the relatively few people who follow move review.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. Andrewa (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Airbus Group

Thanks very much for coming over to do an outside-observer close on Talk:Airbus Group.

I would ask for a clarification on one point though, so no needless edit warring gets started. That discussion was about a Move which occurred, and upon BRD reversion, was decided to temporarily not leave it in the "revert state", simply because the non-consensus original move was a complex multi-page move, with edits and page moves on several articles. Best to have the discussion, and only then clean it up.

So now, with your determination at the discussion of "No consensus to move", which state of the article were you suggesting be the final outcome?

• No consensus for the original (non-consensus) move?
• Or no consensus now to back out the temporarily-left-in-the-encyclopedia non-consensus move?

Will appreciate it if you can provide your understanding of the close you did. Thanks. N2e (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, Cuchullain. Sorry to be a bother on this but I'm really at quite a loss to know how to interpret the closure. I know we're all volunteers here and that you may not have time, or may not choose, to go back and re-read what you might have thought was a straightforward closure. But if you would, I think we would all surely appreciate it.

And if not, I would appreciate it if you would make that clear to me, so I would know that, and then could perhaps start working on where to go next on this. Best. N2e (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, N2e, I must have overlooked your original comment when I got notification of the one after it. I intended to close the discussion as "no consensus" to make any change to the current article. Normally I would have considered moving it to its previous location as the historical stable title, but considering there has been a merge with a complicated history I don't consider that a workable option. Additionally, it wasn't clear what should happen with the name Airbus Group (the existing company) if the article were moved to EDADS. You may want to consider starting a fresh RM in a few months and hoping for a wider participation; right now I don't see any consensus emerging in any particular direction.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Yeah, there was no consensus, in either of the two discussions. But the article did get moved, and edited, and now reflects the non-consensus position. It seems like it ought to be the way it was before the consensus, but I don't want to start an edit war. So unless you think otherwise, I guess it just stays in the mess it is currently in: post-move. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I can understand the frustration. However considering the title came after a merge and the the edit history is now very confused, I don't think un-merging is a good outcome of the RM barring a strong consensus to do that. Especially as it would have just left the modern company's name redirecting to the former name. I suggest revisting the question at a later time.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'd leave it at that, but I think there is one thing you said that isn't quite right. It would not merely have the modern company's name redirecting to the former company name; that would be confusing. In fact, there would be, as there was before the non-consensus move and article combination, an article on the modern Airbus Grounp (which started up essentially in early 2014), and also an article on the former major European defense and space contractor, EADS (European Air Defense Group), which existed and operated as EADS for over ten years in the early 2000s. If the closure were to go that way, I would see to it that the articles got left as they were before the non-consensus move and combination.

But as before, I very much thank you for even reading this far, and for being willing to discuss it after the closure. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Redirects to Soccer

I understand REDIRECT, but there is no hope for an article at soccer and so we shouldn't point to it. The fact that every other MLS article pipes association football is a good reason for keeping it there. The move was also unnecessary and was not discussed, but I won't budge on this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I figured the move was uncontroversial, as the name is much more widely found without the "F.C." and there was no previous discussion. If it's controversial I'm happy to put it back and start an RM.

As for the redirect, redirects aren't only for articles that may be created, I don't know where you got that idea. Redirects in cases like this are actually preferable since we can then find what's linked to where with the WhatLinksHere tool. It also lets us maintain the links. For one example, in the event that "association football" is moved (it's happened before) it means we just have to fix the redirects themselves, instead of thousands and thousands pipe links. There aren't really any advantages to a pipe link in this case. The fact that other MLS team articles use them is a sign that they ought to change, not that we should force consistency.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I got the idea from reading the MoS section. The advantages to piped links avoiding redirects are that it's uniform. It gives us a better idea of how many articles are associated with a subject and possibly if the links are OVERLINKs or not. I do understand the stated advantages, but don't agree that creating links to redirects should be done unless those redirects are to a sub-section of an article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Your personal preference doesn't jive with the guidelines or the way these things are usually done. However, I'm not going to spend any more time arguing with you over something so trivial. Please do make sure to clean up your edit, your reverts broke the formatting.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Alkmaar Zaanstreek Alkmaar

Hello, I am writing in reference to the recent closed discussion pertaining to a redirect of the Dutch football club AZ to AZ Alkmaar. I was in the process of challenging the redirect when the form asked me to please take this up with the closer of the discussion prior to challenging the redirect. I am from the Netherlands, and am also half American, I have spent 20 years living in the U.S. and 15 living in the Netherlands and am well aware of any language differences, especiialy those in regards to Dutch words or cultural aspects.

In regards to the recent redirect, the club name is not AZ Alkmaar, that is far from correct and referencing the club as such actually upsets true Zaanstreek supporters. The 'A' in AZ actually stands for Alkmaar, so calling the club AZ Alkmaar, is like calling Olympique de Marseille = OM Marseille, or Hamburger SV = HSV Hamburg. It is not the correct name of the club and should not be promoted as correct when in fact it is tautology. The person who raised the issue even suggested that we not repeat what other sources do in error and it is exactly what the user has done. Furthermore I am a very active member of the Dutch Football Task Force here on Wikipedia, and was a little upset that none of us were invited to partake in this discussion in order to help shed light on the matter as members who who are well versed in Dutch football culture and its semantics. I mean, for a voter to approve this redirect with an argument that AZ represents Arizona so therefore the football club should be referenced as AZ Alkmaar instead of simply AZ is plain nonsensical.

I would like to reopen the discussion and to invite some member of the Dutch football task force to add their opinions as well, because to me and many others who are more familiar with the cultute and the club this is a real eye sore. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your response.

Kind regards,

(Subzzee (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC))

It took me a while to figure out what you were asking, I take it you're talking about the requested move from November 2013? I can give a bit more explanation for that.

First, Wikipedia articles go with the common name of a subject. On the English Wikipedia, in cases where the subject is established in English sources, only English use is considered. Here, the nominator provided a number of English-language sources that use the form "AZ Alkmaar", and this wasn't ever challenged in the discussion.

Additionally, a subject's official name isn't necessarily preferred if something else is more common, and we don't try to sort out what's the "correct" name, only what's the most established in the sources. As such, if "AZ Alkmaar" is in use, we don't avoid it just because it's not the official name, or because it sounds incorrect. The nominator also showed that the team itself uses "AZ Alkmaar" at times, so it shouldn't be avoided just due to that.

Thirdly, there's the matter of disambiguation, since there are various articles that could be called "AZ". As the nominator noted, natural disambiguation is preferred to putting a term in parentheses. As such, "AZ Alkmaar" is preferable to AZ (football club) even if "AZ Alkmaar" is somewhat less common than "AZ".

Beyond that, there wasn't a single opposing comment among the various people who weighed in. As they had solid policy-based arguments, there wasn't really another way to close the discussion.

If you want to move the article, they way to do that will be opening another WP:RM. There, you'll need to present evidence that some other name is more common in English (Wikipedia page views, Google Books hits, a review of available sources, etc), account for WP:NATURALDIS, and get a consensus that your proposed name better fits Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Let me know if you have any other questions.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that, although it seems really wrong, I can see why a SKY Sports for example would add the Alkmaar portion to help clarify the subject when talking about AZ to an audience that is not familiar with Dutch football. It's a pity English is one of the three recognized national languages in the Kingdom of the Netherlands alongside Papiamento and Dutch of course, and you would think we would have more say in how subjects are addressed when they are specified by name. AZ Alkmaar really comes across as very redundant to those in the know. I will leave it alone for now, and see if I can conjure up enough evidence to make a case of it. If not I will just let it go. Thanks again. (Subzzee (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Constantine (Briton), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Erbin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Farr 40 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• In 1997, the world’s first Farr 40 One Design was launched at Carroll Marine in [[Newport, Rhode Island] with the hope of creating an exciting new one-design class that could

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Shaggy 2 Dope may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to In the Heart of the Sea (film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | distributor = [[Warner Bros.]]<br/>][[Columbia Pictures]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fort Caroline may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• metro/2014-02-21/story/scholars-say-ancient-fort-caroline-nowhere-near-jacksonville |newspaper= [[The Flo|location= |publisher= |accessdate= March 14, 2014}}</ref> Other scholars have been

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The News of Cumberland County may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | ceased publication = 2012 (merged into the ''[[South Jersey Times]]''

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	I'd like to thank you for making the edit to change "Forth Rail Bridge" to "Forth Bridge". Most gratefully, A Scot who live close to both the "Forth Bridge" and the "Forth Road Bridge" Triptropic (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Triptropic! It was a pretty easy close, I think.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Image copyright on Tropes

While I agree nobody's yet made a compelling case for inclusion, does the information from the fan artist (which may or may not be authentic, as self-published) put our fair use of the image derived from Sarkeesian's website in question? BusterD (talk) 05:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

BusterD, sorry, I'm away from home so I won't have much time to respond for a few days. As far as the fan artist goes, I don't think that has any bearing one way or another on whether the image is acceptable. This artist may have drawn the image, but I see no indication whatsoever that she has the copyright on that character. Even if what she says is true (again, I haven't researched it closely enough to judge as of yet), it's just some fan art of someone else's character. Presumably Sarkeesian was making a fair use argument to use images of copyrighted video game characters for commentary and criticism (the same way she can use art and game play in her videos); our own image license makes basically the same claim and is clear the copyright belongs to the actual creators (of the characters, not that specific drawing of them).

However, I don't really know the justification for using the image in the first place, considering there are other Tropes Vs... images that we could use that don't include copyrighted characters (now anyway). Since our objective is to discuss Sarkeesian rather than the characters, and we now have other options to illustrate our articles, I'd think we should avoid any that include copyrighted characters.

The TLDR version is, yes, I'm skeptical about using that image in the article, but for reasons totally independent of this fan artist's claims.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Side question on the same subject. User:Zero Serenity boxed the RFC discussion recently, giving the impression of an impartial close of procedure. Isn't this out of process? I'd think a request for comment would normally need to be closed before it was boxed or archived. Am I wrong? BusterD (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you. I just read Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure and see that even an involved editor can close a discussion when consensus is clear. Still not done properly, and in the case of this pagespace (for reason of potential back-seat driving), I'd tend toward wanting the utmost appearance of upholding policy and guideline. BusterD (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bit off: just the RfC specifically should have been closed. And even though it's abundantly clear there's no consensus for the proposal, given the contentiousness of all things related to Sarkeesian, it would probably be better to get someone uninvolved to close to remain above board. Have you brought this up with Zero?

I also forgot about this discussion... we definitely need at least to discuss our use of the Kickstarter image, as it involves copyrighted characters. I'll start a discussion now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thought I'd get a second opinion before asking Zero to reconsider. I've now done so. BusterD (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Miami Fusion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chicago Fire (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) 08:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Ottawa Fury

Sorry about the revert. It was the merge discussion that ended as no consensus. The consensus in the move discussion was to go forward even though it's clearly the wrong decision. I was just going back to self-revert. Thanks for doing that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I'll start a discussion at Ottawa Fury FC, and if you have concerns about BDD's decision I'm sure he'd be amenable to discussing it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Doge's Palace

Much close, very grateful. Wow. Shouldn't Doge's Palace (disambiguation) get G6 treatment now? I would've done it myself, but maybe you were thinking of something I didn't. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Done and done. I often don't delete them if I think there's a possibility another article could be created making them necessary, but this doesn't seem to be one of those cases. Unless of course that Shiba Inu meme gets its own mansion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Guinevere

I just wanted to note a couple things regarding your edit of the Guinevere article. 1) The spelling Guanhumara is but one among many variations found in the numerous manuscripts of the Historia Regum Brittaniae; it is quite clear from a comparison of the spelling variations that Geoffrey's source must have read *Guenhuiuar(a), which is the expected Old Welsh spelling of the name Gwenhwyfar. 2) While it is true that most scholars believe that the core of Culhwch ac Olwen predates Geoffrey, the version of the tale _as_we_currently_have_it_ cannot be securely dated and shows some post-Galfridian additions; Geoffrey's HRB is thus the first securely datable mention of Guinevere. Cagwinn (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but even so it doesn't justify the addition as it was written (". who first appears in Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae [History of the Kings of Britain] written c. 1136"), even without the typographical error. First, as I said, "Guinevere" doesn't appear as such in the Historia; she's called "Guanhumara" or some variant. Clearly, it's a variation of the same character (and name), but the differences are significant enough that the anon's wording is misleading if not confusing. As you say, the Historia's names for her are related to "Gwenhwyfar", but this just increases the chance for confusion, as the pre-Galfridian characterization of Gwenhwyfar appears to have been very different from Geoffrey, not to mention the Continental romances where "Guinevere" appears.

As for the date, the edit did not say "the earliest text mentioning a version of the figure that can be dated with 100% certainty is the Historia", it just says she flat out "first appears" there. As the character was pretty obviously drawn from earlier tradition, this wording is misleading. Culhwch demonstrates this, even if the manuscript is later, as basically every association of Gwenhwyfar is pre/non-Galfridian (her sister Gwenwhyfach, her association with magical items). But even besides Culhwch, I can think of three other sources mentioning Gwenhwyfar that have a chance of predating Geoffrey: Caradoc's Life of Gildas, the Modena Archivolt, and the "Ymddiddan Gwenhwyfar ac Arthur" fragment.

But beyond all this, the material isn't really necessary for the introduction, let alone the introductory sentence. More can and should be done with the article body, with sources and clearer wording.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are unnecessarily splitting hairs - it does not matter one bit that her name is rendered in an archaic spelling in the HRB - Ganhumara IS Gwenhwyfar, who IS (in turn) Guinevere of the French romances. All serious scholars Arthurian recognize this fact. The HRB is her first _securely_datable_ appearance in literature. I agree that it should be noted that Geoffrey clearly picked her up from existing Welsh tradition, but we cannot get around the fact that we cannot securely date her earliest appearance in Welsh literature.

Regarding Winlogee on the Modena Archivolt (who is the same as Guinloie/Guenloie, lover of Yder in the Romance of Yder and of Gawain in the Chevalier as deus Espees) - I know that it is commonly stated by some (rather careless, IMHO) scholars that she is Guinevere, but her name surely comes from Old Breton Guenlodoe, which is not at all related to Welsh Gwehnhwyfar. Some scholars dance around this fact by suggesting that the Bretons substituted a Breton name for an original Welsh one, but there is little evidence to support this. Celtic literature is full of kidnapped damsels - it is surely coincidence that Winlogee and Guinevere share the same (quite common!) initial element of the compound names.Cagwinn (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Appreciating nuance isn't necessarily "splitting hairs". The anon's claim was that "Guinevere" appears in the Historia and that this is "the first time" she appears. They didn't say "the character later known as Guinevere" or that it's "the first _securely_datable_ time" she appears. The wording is misleading, and again, it's not needed in the lead. However, the first "_securely_datable_" appearance(s) are definitely something that could and should be in the article body.

As for the Modena Archivolt, you may of course be right. It's more likely there was serious mutation of the story at different points. There are reasons to connect Winlogee with Guinevere beyond the names. As you know both appear in the Romance of Yder; Guenloie is Yder's lover but Guinevere has the hots for him too, and she's the one he actually rescues (from the bear). Yder's got some luck to be involved with two thinly characterized, similarly named queens in the same story. The Berne Folie Tristan mentions that Guinevere was Yder's lover and that he rescued her in the same way. Lo and behold, at Modena, "Isdernus" is involved in a rescue of "Winlogee" along with Arthur, Che, and all the boys. Or something, it's a pretty confusingly plotted archivolt. But there's clearly some connection between these versions.

At any rate, both this carving and those other two texts were created at around the same time as each other and the Historia. All of this would be great material to cite and include in the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Parliament of Sweden

There used to be an explanation of the term riksdag further down in the article about the parliament of Sweden, but this was removed sometime around when you made Wikipedia move the article to the invented English name "Riksdag". Therefore the explanation needs to be in the very first sentence. 90.233.138.0 (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it does not, that's bad article writing. As I said, the article is actually about the parliament, not the name for the parliament, so the language needs to reflect that. If you want to add material on the article body about the name(s), that would be appropriate, but your current wording implies that the article is about the term riksdag instead of the actual body. Additionally, just as a warning, the reverting isn't a good idea; if you continue you may be subject to a block.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 4 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Game Developers Choice Awards page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Santa Elena (Spanish Florida), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chicora (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) 08:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)