User talk:Cuchullain/Archive 23

Thanks for reverting the IPs at Hajiri's page. I wanted to let you know that I have filed a protection request at

No problem. I semi-protected it indefinitely, hopefully that will help.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your swift action. Enjoy your weekend on wiki and off. MarnetteD | Talk 00:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks as well for the swift action. I haven't been involved with that Hijiri88 thing lately since the user's departure and my diligent efforts in reporting some IP socks of JoshuSasori. I also appreciate your efforts for taking care of this situation, Cuchullain. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Having recently bought and read a copy of Florida Fiasco by Rembert W. Patrick (1954), I was looking into writing an article about the Patriot War. There are reserve copies of The Other War of 1812: The Patriot War and the American Invasion of Spanish East Florida by James G. Cusick (2003) and The plot to steal Florida: James Madison's phony war by Joseph Burkholder Smith (1983) in local libraries. There is supposed to be a circulating copy of The Other War of 1812 in one library, which I have reserved, but it appears to be missing. There also appear to be downloadable copies of The plot to steal Florida, but I haven't tried to download one, yet.

Anyway, in searching for sources, I saw your sand-box start. Are you still interested in developing the article? I probably will work rather slowly on it, as I have gotten out of the habit of editing WP. In any case, with at least 3 books published on the subject, I think a fairly long article is appropriate. -- Donald Albury 13:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I had pretty much forgotten about that. I was intending to just whip up a stub based on Gannon's History of Florida and a few other sources, and I got sidetracked and forgot about it. I'm afraid I don't have much to add at this point, but I will gladly help out as I can.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You took part in[closed] Vučitrn → Vushtrri RM. Please see suggestion for follow up at

The article clearly states an American Brewery now. This implies that the Brewery is American owned. I simply changed the first line to reflect a Costa Rican owned Brewery in America. I am unsure why this change offends you so much but I will post for moderator review.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbparker40 (talk • contribs)

I have responded at the article talk page. The brewery itself is in the US, no matter who owns it. My updates to the article already make clear that it is owned by a Costa Rican company.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The first line of the article states " is an American brewery in South Burlington, Vermont." Clearly saying an american Brewery. Its a Costa Rican owned American Brewery as it is under the proprietorship of the Costa Rican Brand. To say it is an american brewery is misleading at best. The Brand is costa rican. To make another analogy we don't claim that Honda is an american car manufacturer because it makes the cars in the USA.... Also the beer itself links to this page.Lbparker40 (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

We would say the factories themselves were American, because they would be. At any rate, I removed the word "American" which seems to be your biggest concern. Please continue any further discussion on the article talk page so others can see it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Someone forgot to tell you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
	Hi Cuchullain! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the SarahStierch (talk ) 22:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Great job with San Marco (Jacksonville). Can't believe there wasn't an article on that a few months ago. I guess there are still articles to write!. 50.193.171.69 (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Well thank you! I hope to work on articles for all of Jacksonville's urban core neighborhoods at some point.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
	Hi Cuchullain! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! EdwardsBot (talk ) 14:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to University of Florida Health 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.

Thanks,

• arb · rfc · lta · socks
  )

New User - first edit removing Hangul from Korean girl band, then edits to cats of Dukes of Wellington, then mass undiscussed moves of Vietnam articles, with familiar pattern of redirect edit locks. From today my watchlist beeping like crazy (at the time I'm always out every Saturday) with articles I created being moved and locked. I put in for Tech revert. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Please revert all of his undiscussed moved involving Vietnam-related articles, thank. ༆ (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was mostly inaccessible this weekend. From what I'm seeing this certainly looks like it could be a sock of Kauffner; I'll look into it more today.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This looks like Kauffner to me. I've started a new SPI here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you close the "Harry S Truman" move review, please, or let it wait a little longer? --George Ho (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't really know how to close move reviews, but I'll have a look and see what I can do. I think this process is seriously broken.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you might use {{

subst:MRV bottom}}. --George Ho (talk

) 21:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see Template_talk:Canadian_colonies#needs_renaming and note recent undos/reversions on the template. I'm of the same opinion as you on the matter, noting your previous responses on the talkpage.Skookum1 (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Noting it was you who closed the Lillooet/St'at'imc RM, is it viable that you can close the St'at'imc CfR? That was basically hinged on the result of that RM..Skookum1 (talk) 03:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have much experience with CfDs, I'm afraid. Whatever is done with the category, should the article be moved to

Sťáťimc (with the diacritics)? This is done with many other similar articles--Cúchullain ^t/c

12:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The central issue, or one of the many side issues rather, was whether the term is used in English. It is, without the diacriticals, e.g. in newspapers and so on. Publications of the St'at'imc themselves, including www.statimc.net use the diacritical forms. Essentially the difference is between how it is used in English, and how it is properly written in St'at'imcets itself. As with

Sto:lo, which is also very common in English now, official and media, the diacriticals are not used. That was the point of my CfD in the first place; the old diacriticalized form even include special t-apostrophe characters, not "t"+"'".....Skookum1 (talk

) 15:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't know what's happened there, looks like someone has speedied the category back to the diacriticalized form despite the RM and CfD. I have guests and can't look into this, but when I started this, and even a few days ago, it was

Sto:lo people for the article and I thought the CfD had adopted that and created Category:Sto:lo. Adjourning for the night, it's 10pm...but somebody is moving the goalposts and starting the game over and it's really....really irritating. The undiacriticalized forms are dmonstrably standard English in Canada now. The use of the diacriticals are not.Skookum1 (talk

) 15:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I just checked, the article is at

Sto:lo Tribal Council, and there are political issues as to why. There are many independent bands, some use the one or the other. But in "regular" media and normal print usage, the diacriticalized form is not used; if anything it's "politically correct", which also means that academic texts may still continue to use it. It's quarter after ten pm now, the beer I bought for my friends who are departing is getting warm (it's 37 degrees here, despite it being dark). Back tomorrow.Skookum1 (talk

) 15:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha. In any event, I'd rather leave CsD closings to someone with more experience, though it may be worth noting that the main article has been moved.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gwriad ap Elidyr 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.

Thanks,

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cormoran 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:

• Giant-Killer" and awarded a belt on which was written:<ref name=Williams/><ref name=jacobs/><ref>{{cite journal |last1= Spooner |first1= B. C.|year= 1965 |title= The Giants of Cornwall|journal=
• him her store of eggs and butter. This both feeds the giant and makes Nancy's family rich.<ref>{{cite journal |last1= Spooner |first1= B. C.|year= 1965 |title= The Giants of Cornwall|journal=

Thanks,

Can you give a closure rationale? I don't know how oppose arguments overcome support ones. --George Ho (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It's been one month overdue; I hope you use {{

I closed the Dot the i review; hopefully I formatted it correctly. I'd rather not get involved in these in the future.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings!

Seeing that once upon a time you requested notification should there ever be a Wikipedia Meetup in

If you're able and inclined to come, please RSVP at at this URL.

Type to you later, Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure there's no consensus to overturn? I'd entreat you to look again at

Yes, after much consideration I don't consider there to be a strong enough consensus to overturn the original closure. The most I could see would be "'overturn' to no consensus" (which would have the same result - the article staying put - so I'm not going to do it) and possibly relisting, which I may have considered if we hadn't just gone through several months of discussion already. I think it's time for a breather on this one, you can start another RM down the road if you wish.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Overturning to no consensus would have a different result. In the wake of such controversy, surely we should be reverting to what our guidelines on

talk

) 14:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No, overturning the closure from "not moved" to "no consensus to move" would have the same result - the article stays put. Exceptions are sometimes made to put it back to the last stable version, but this article has been at "i" for 7 years. It's seriously time for a breather.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Reading through the move review once again, I think you have made the wrong call - there does seem to be consensus to overturn. And

talk

) 14:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I stand by my closure.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm counting 6 overturns, 2 endorse, and a couple of overturn to no consensus (and I'm not sure what George means!). --

talk

) 14:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a headcount. No one seriously argued that Ed was out of their purview in their close, and at least two participants - including you - suggested "no consensus" would have been a palatable decision though it would have the same result. I'm getting 5 for overturn, 4 supporting the close, 1 neutral leaning overturn and George Ho's unclear comments that seem to lean endorse. This is hardly a strong consensus to overturn the last decision and the article's status quo. Again, I stand by my decision.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

2 endorse only - Smokey Joe moved towards overturn to no consensus. Not sure where you're getting the fourth from. At least three of the "overturn" were surprised at the outcome considering the strength of the arguments, and Smokey Joe suggested that Ed shouldn't have closed it due to admission of non-confidence. Read in conjunction with the original move, there are no strong

talk

) 15:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I count EdJohnston, Red Slash, Binksternet, and Smokey Joe, whose "Endorse, leaning Overturn (no consensus to rename)"/"no consensus to move" is a vote to uphold the standing status quo. Then of course there's your statement that "'no consensus' would have been reasonable", though it's now clear you didn't understand what "no consensus" means. Overturning a closure requires clear consensus to do so, and that doesn't exist here without parsing it into oblivion. Time to move on.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

My point there was that had Ed closed with a "no consensus to move" I could have seen where he was coming from, although I would still have disagreed. However he closed it with a "consensus not to move", which was clearly not apparent from the arguments in the RM, and the MR backs up this view. I'm surprised you can't see this. We need a second opinion. --

talk

) 16:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cormoran, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bullock and Gogmagog (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) 12:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I asked Rschen, I would have thought it was simple enough, but evidently not]. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this. I had been thinking of taking this to RM; did I read somewhere that a repeated bold move (which has been reverted and taken to ddiscussion per BRD) can be reversed as a technical move? I was looking through the RM talk pages, but had drawn a blank (and it may just be a figment of my rum-soaked imagination!) Anyway thanks; I've stated my objections at the RM discussion

Technical requests can be used to reverse an undiscussed move you can't do it yourself. That didn't seem to be an issue here, since you were able to move it back; Marshall just shouldn't have moved it the second time. At any rate it seems to be sorted now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Cuchullain. I see that last week you reverted a deletion to The Art Institutes article, and thanks for doing so: it's certainly relevant information. (And at this writing you're still the most recent to have edited.) I also wanted to ask if you would be interested in looking at a new draft of the articl?. I'd like to be very clear: I am working on this page on behalf of Education Management Corporation, the parent company of The Art Institutes, and because of my financial COI I will not be making any mainspace edits. I recently left a request on the Talk page where I have explained my concerns with the current version and provided a link to the draft in my user space. Please take a look if you are interested. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate you being up front, and your hard work. I think your edits look good.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Right on, thanks. Because of my relationship to the subject, I won't be the one to make the edits myself. However, I'd also reached out to another editor at the same time (User:Ɱ) who also gave thumbs up and I think is going to make the move this weekend. Still, glad you also approve! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 01:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

So i'm interested in hearing your take on the First Coast page. It seems that there is a struggle between the terms First Coast and Northeast Florida. They roughly have the same definition, but I'm concerned that the differences they do possess are blurred by the redirect and emphasis on First Coast. The term First Coast has a history of being used as a marketing tool, but the term leaves out a large chunk of the area population that may feel connected to the region, but not necessarily self identify with being a First Coaster. Northeast Florida being a geographical designation, and widely used by regional organizations to define an area larger than that of the Jacksonville metropolitan area, make it less loaded and more inclusive and cohesive. I don't believe two pages are needed, but a flip flop might be helpful. A history of the term First Coast should be included, but the more important encyclopedic topic is Norhteast Florida, to me. Let me know what you think. Mathew105601 (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

As usual, what we'd need are sources. We have two good ones for "First Coast" (the Lamme and Oldakowski paper and Calnan's Times-Union article), which give the same basic area. However, I haven't been able to find any good sources for "Northeast Florida". Lamme & Oldakowski include it, but they give it a much more restricted area (just Duval and Nassau Counties). Of course this doesn't track with common usage. The best I could find was the Enterprise Florida "regional" map, which includes metro Jacksonville as well as Putnam and Flagler. But the source isn't really about Northeast Florida as a region, it just mentions it, so we're basically using it as a primary source (and evidently Enterprise Florida now uses somewhat different names for the regions, making it less helpful here.[1]) We can't (re)write an article just based on that. In other words, I think the current setup is the way to go until we find some good secondary sources giving a real description of Northeast Florida.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, though it's just my own estimation at this point, I think "First Coast" is becoming more common throughout the region outside of Jacksonville. For instance you'll here references including Palm Coast and Flagler County in the "First Coast", and the name appears to be spreading to business there,[2] as well as in Putnam County[3] and even occasionally in the St. Mary's, Georgia area.[4] At this point I think the terms "First Coast" and "Northeast Florida" increasingly describe the same area. Again, however, without sources this isn't something that can be added.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually a little torn as to whether it should be referred to as the First Coast or Northeast Florida. I think for outsiders it is easier to locate the region with the latter name. As far as the areas considered part of the region, I think you are missing a few very important references that set a huge precedent for the region. You have the Northeast Florida Regional Council and the Newly established Northeast Florida Regional Transportation Commission. These are growing organizations. Not to mention the list of other establishments that include Putnam and Flagler county into there internal references to Northeast Florida. I got the citations to establish Putnam and Flagler as part of the Northeast Florida?First Coast region. I think you even have Putnam County included in the combined statistical area of Jacksonville. That's why it was kind of perplexing that when you reverted the regional map you removed Palatka and left Palm Coast. Mathew105601 (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't look at cities in the infobox, I just restored whatever what there before to move your new image to the "Northeast Florida" section and restore the old one. I think I've taken care of it now. As for the sources for "Northeast Florida", again, those would all be

secondary sources, which are needed to write articles. Unlike "First Coast", we still don't have any good secondary sources - the one we do have gives a much more restricted definition than those organizations use. I think the name itself may be familiar, as it's self-explanatory, but the definition isn't necesarily; "First Coast" is pretty well known according to Lamme & Oldakowski. Again, I don't think we should perform a move or big rewrite until we can find appropriate sources for it.--Cúchullain ^t/c

13:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. I sometimes let my personal preferences take control, especial when I go on an editing spree. I end up getting a message from you shortly after. I need to be reeled in sometimes. I will keep an eye out for more sources, but honestly it is not the most pressing issue. I have limited time to edit and I always have a list of things I want update or add. This is just one more on this list. I hope I don't come across as an ass. I forget that there is a person on the other side of this screen. I do appreciate the input. Mathew105601 (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's been a good discussion, and it's clarified some things about the article. I think sources for "Northeast Florida" with turn up as the term increases in popularity. I've added two sentences describing some of the organizations; I think that will do for now until we locate some additional sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I just closed an RM at Hillary Clinton, but realized after the fact that the redirect is locked so I can't tag it for deletion. Would you mind enacting this move?

Oy vey, this is going to be a long morning. I'll look into this and the move review.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

don't worry, the admin action has been done, undone, redone already. If you want to weigh in at move review feel free but no other admin action is needed for Now - sorry should have struck the request above. Best --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

	Great American Wiknic South Florida at Pompano Beach Pier
	You are invited to the Great American Wiknic South Florida at lovely Pompano Beach Pier, on this Saturday June 22! We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck :) -- User:GChriss (talk)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tropical Hockey League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mambo (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) 11:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Good afternoon Cuchullain,

I am a Communications Specialist writing on behalf of the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners. As the local government body serving St. Johns County, our organization has a vested interest in the content written on the Wikipedia page designated for our region. In our efforts to provide residents, visitors, and external viewers with the most up-to-date and factual information regarding St. Johns County, we recently established a Wikipedia account to offer edits and improvements to the page. Out of respect and consideration for the rules and guidelines detailed by Wikipedia, we have made consistent efforts to offer content which we feel supports Wikipedia’s goals of sharing unbiased, community based, and reference backed information. Though we are extremely proud of St. Johns County and would love to fill the Wikipedia page with endless accolades, we recognize our responsibility to offer site visitors neutral information. We welcome any feedback on how best to balance these efforts. As an example, we would like to share the fact that St. Johns County has been recognized as having the number one school district in the state. There are numerous references explaining this recognition, how it was established, and what it means for our residents and the future of St. Johns County. With your help, we hope to share this type of County fact on Wikipedia in an appropriate fashion. Thank you in advance for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceilingtile1234 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) FYI... Ceilingtile1234 posted the same comments in this help desk thread they started. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Cuchullain

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

...

No, if there's any potential of controversy it needs to go through a discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This is now the oldest case at WP:RM and I was thinking of closing it. For part of my reasoning I was going to say that British language was the long-term name of the article prior to June 19. Here are the logs I found:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MovePage/British_language (moved by
  Old Brythonic (language)
  at 11:41 on 19 June)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MovePage/Old_Brythonic_%28language%29 (moved by you to
  Brittonic language
  at 13:32 on 19 June)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MovePage/Brittonic_language (moved by
  User:Angr to British language
  at 14:21 on 19 June)

Do you know if the long term name of this article prior to 19 June was British language? So far as I can tell all of the June 19 actions were bold moves and none of them were the result of discussions. Is my claim about the history correct? I don't know any way to look at the edit history and tell what name was used for the article at various times. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The edit history is very convoluted. The history is tied up with the article now at

Brythonic languages

and it has covered different things at different times. Here's what I can come up with:

• The earliest use I can find was
  Brythonic languages by Angr on April 22, 2006.[6]
• British language was originally a redirect to British English created in 2003.[7] It was converted to a dab page (which didn't include this language) in 2004[8] and the dab page was moved to British language (disambiguation) on October 3, 2010.[9]
  
• Meanwhile, a separate article on the historical language itself, originally titled
  British language (Celtic) on December 26, 2005[11]
  and stayed there for most of its history.
• From then until October 3, 2010, "British language" was the dab page, and the present article was at
  British language (Celtic); at that point the dab page was moved to "British language (disambiguation)" (without discussion) and the language article was moved to "British language".[12]
  
  
• After that the article didn't move until June, though it has caused quite a bit of confusion as can be told from the talk page and ÓCorcráin's move.
• Your summary of the recent moves is right, with minor corrections: ÓCorcráin moved the page to
  here), hence my move and subsequent RM nomination. As you can see, my opinion is that this name is more common in the sources and much less confusing to readers. I hope that's helpful.--Cúchullain ^t/c
  18:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

And I still see no evidence that the name "Brittonic language" is more common in the sources than "British language", and my opinion is that naming it "Brittonic language" will more confusing, not less, than keeping the name "British language" (or possibly "British language (Celtic)" so it's clearer it doesn't mean British English). Google-hit counts are meaningless because there's no way to separate "Brittonic language" when it means "the Celtic language spoken in Britain up to about the 5th century AD" from "Brittonic language" when it means "any language of the Brittonic branch of the Celtic language family". Nor do I see any consensus on "Brittonic language" (or anything else, for that matter) from the previous discussions you linked to above.

talk

) 20:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I have now fixed two mistakes in my original listing of the moves, above. EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I find it less confusing in that "British language" can refer to any language from Britain, including English, while "Brittonic language" can only refer to this language and its related descendents. This has confused readers for years as can be seen on the talk page. Though I didn't think it so the time, I'm increasingly of the opinion that "British language" really ought to be a dab page. As for prevalence, well, "Brittonic" seems to have the edge in the sources discussed in the RM.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I find it more confusing in that "Brittonic language" has two distinct meanings (mentioned in my post of 20:09), while "British language" has only one. And I still don't see that "Brittonic" has the edge in the sources discussed in the RM, since in those sources "Brittonic" is mostly used to refer to the language family, not the single language.

talk

) 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks like

User:Angr is the only one who clearly favors British language in the move discussion. If Angr and Cuchullain could reach an agreement here, it might be possible to wind up the move discussion with a compromise. Per Cagwinn, what is required is a suitable name for a specific language which at least one scholar has called 'archaic neo-Brittonic'. In the Wikipedia system, a plain vanilla name like 'British language' will have many associations for our readers other than a certain ancient language. If article titles are chosen so as to lead the reader quickly to the real topic they intend to search for, one can see the limitations of 'British language.' EdJohnston (talk

) 22:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Notifying

WP:RM. EdJohnston (talk

) 22:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Lots of articles run the risk of not being what users were first looking for. That's what hatnotes and dab pages are for. Nevertheless, I doubt that very many readers looking for info on British English are going to search for "British language" in the first instance. It's more a case of people stumbling across this article and finding it's about a different topic than the title would have led them to believe. That probably happens to people who stumble across

talk

) 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I suspect a number of users look up

WP:COMMONNAME is based on usage in sources, not anticipating search patterns. My only questions are 1) which name for the ancient Celtic language predominates among scholarly sources, and 2) how strongly it leads in scholarly usage. The former indicates common name (though determining that seems tricky in this case, and may require nothing less than a qualitative study of scholarly sources), and the latter indicates stability. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge

) 01:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

These join this work by Peter Schrijver I found on Google Books. Another, the Companion to Arthurian Literature, uses both "Brittonic" and "British" in the same passage, and a few more use "Brythonic". Several more use either "Brittonic" in a way that isn't clear whether the language or the branch (or both) is intended, and several others do the same with "Brythonic".
In my collection, at least, "Brittonic" seems to be more common than "British". However, one thing I noticed was that several of the works using "Brittonic" call it "Common Brittonic" at least part of the time. Angr suggested a name like this may be acceptable. While I still feel that "Brittonic" is more common and haven't seen any evidence to the contrary, I think that may be a workable title for this topic if we're still at a stalemate.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be much happier with

talk

) 07:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Based on the comments here, I'm planning to close the move discussion with Common Brittonic as the result. EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

That's fine with me. After the move,

talk

) 14:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Cúchullain has made the case for both common name and

natural disambiguation from the family branch. Might be a good idea to copy this thread into the RM discussion for the benefit of future move requesters. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge

) 16:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Wilhelm, thanks for the suggestion. I copied this thread over to the RM and put it in a collapse box at the bottom. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Since you were the closing admin for a relevant prior move discussion, I hereby invite you to comment in the new discussion that I just opened. —BarrelProof (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Your closing summary of Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2013_June#Ana_Ivanovic (closed) did not address the substantive point I was making. If it had, then the comment you have place in the close is meaningless. Please adjust the close to do so namely that closes should be based on policies and guidelines not on a personal preference. -- PBS (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I think my statement is sufficient.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Cuchullain, your last undo was to a edit that I feel is needed. "Southside, across the river to the south", gives no point of reference. Are you on the Westside giving your first hand account. It needs a point of reference. "east" gave it that point.Mathew105601 (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

But east of what? I was using the same point of reference as the others (downtown, which is how the term originates).Cúchullain ^t/c 01:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I really don't want to write an essay on this. I understand the point you are making, but it would be clearer if you used downtown in that statement or indicated to which side of the river you are referring to. You did mention downtown in the two previous regions listed, then you omitted downtown from Southside. When stating "east of the river", the river becomes the point of reference. When saying "across the river", one has to ask themselves, which direction. That's my grammar lesson for the day. I'll leave it up to you, I don't really have a choice in the matter. I edit something and you come in and reedit the whole thing. Mathew105601 (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

That change sounds good to me. My only issue with "east" is that Arlington is also east of the river (the edit didn't have a point of reference either). I hope my "reedits" don't bother you. It's the practice around here, and I think we've been collaborating well together.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I do appreciate your reedits. It helps clarify my entries, sometimes. It does get a little frustrating when I've spent time working out a format and I post the edit, only to return an hour later to find all my data has been reworked. I know that is what wiki is about, but there is a degree of ownership and pride that comes with an edit. I've also been on edge today. Didn't mean to snap. I just felt like there was this glaring problem that was not fixable unless I wrote an essay explaining it. I like the new version. It reads well. Sorry I'm crazy Mathew105601 (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *''[[The Field (The Field (play)|The Field]]''

Thanks,