Talk:Cullen, Moray

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article needs census data.

Scotland Mid‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cullen

Are we sure about 4 viaducts? 84.9.88.149 01:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're not. There are four railway bridges in the town, but only three of them are multi-span - so it's only three viaducts. The one at the west end of the town is by far the most impressive, and appears regularly on Scottish calendars. At one point it crosses the road as the road crosses Cullen Burn, so we have a viaduct crossing a bridge. Source is my personal memory, I lived there for 2.5 years and still drive through the town twice every weekday. S2Wiki 16:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date of burgh charter

The article says Cullen "received its first known burgh charter in 1455", but McNeill and MacQueen, Atlas of Scottish History (1996), p. 197, includes Cullen on its list of royal burghs already in existence by 1214. Lachrie (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move as proposed. While there was a discussion to move this to Cullen, Scotland, it is not clear that there was consensus for that. I'd suggest a follow on nomination to just consider that option. Given the the opposition for the move was the lack of a primary topic, the dab page will be moved to the primary name space as was suggested in several comments. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen, Moray → Cullen — to revert an unnecessary move in the opposite direction that has left many links in other articles pointing to the wrong page. --Deskford (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose correct the links. There's more than one Cullen. Move the disambiguation page to primary. 64.229.103.232 (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; Cullen should be a disambiguation page. Powers ^T 14:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not clear that this is a primary topic and several other articles exist. Most of the links are for this article, but that is possibly because it was previously at that title. A few are for the surname, which should probably be split from the disambiguation page. Peter E. James (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of places and things called Cullen, so I don't think this fairly small village is the clear primary topic. Though I would suggest moving the article to Cullen, Scotland per the naming conventions: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Scotland. And it would be less confusing - I never knew Cullen was in Moray, I thought it was in Aberdeenshire or Banffshire... --Vclaw (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move to Cullen, because the surname is clearly the older and more important meaning (all other meanings seem to be derived from it). Move to Cullen, Scotland: WP:Be bold, this was more a "this article does not belong here, but Cullen (disambiguation) does"-move than a "Cullen, Moray is the perfect place for the article about this cow's hamlet"-move. --User1812011 (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Normally, a surname derives from the name of a town, not the other way round. The Royal Burgh of Cullen, was at one point a quite important town, hardly a cows hamlet. It would have been polite have suggested the change, prior to doing so. There are a number of places called "Glasgow" but we dont have a disambiguation page"--Lieutenant Kijé (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I differ. The place is in Scotland; the distribution of the name is in the north of Ireland. So either it is derived from the name; or it might as well be that "Cullen" has a meaning in a language family (Gaelic) that made it a name as well as a place name in totally independent locations (cf. Serbia and Sorbs for another example). As it is a place, it has got a region, so it can be called Cullen, Scotland like VClaw suggested. --User1812011 22:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:- King Indulf (possibly from the Danish Hilduf) who died in Cullen, had a son King Culen, sometimes referred to as Culenring (suggested to be from the Danish hringer). The point is that as a name Cullen cannot be purely described as coming from Ireland. Additionally a number of authors have suggested that the names identified by Ptolemny are Pictish, they would later be gaelicised and/or norwegianised. In all probability the Scottish & Irish Towns and Scottish and Irish names have no connections except as coincidencies. What matters as to what people are search for and I reckon the on Google the Scottish Town of Cullen just pips Twighlights Edward Cullen. Cullen Golf Club and Cullen Bay Hotel and even 'Cullen Skink hits the 1st page. IMHO a bowl of Cullen skink tops anything.--Lieutenant Kijé (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My reason for requesting the move back was not because of any perception of one usage being more important than the other. I suspect the surname and placename could have arisen independently. The origins of both are uncertain, and rival claims of Gaelic and Norse derivation are made for the Moray town and also for the hills in Skye and Rùm that bear the presumed same name spelled "Cuillin". My concern was that the move had been made without consultation and, crucially, without any apparent attempt to clean up the many links from other pages that are now left pointing to the wrong place. Vegaswikian (talk · contribs) has corrected some of these by modifying {{Moray places}}, but many more remain. User1812011 (talk · contribs)'s move was indeed WP:BOLD — the next stage in the WP:BRD cycle is to revert. --Deskford (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, it isn't. Actually, the next logical step is to determine where the article should go (Cullen, Scotland has been nominated), and then correcting the links.

As you undoubtedly have seen, the links to the article are such an utter chaos between links that should point to the place and links that should point to the disambig.

As you also can plainly see above, many others are following my arguments that the cow's hamlet is NOT entiteled to the Cullen article, because that greatly contributed to the chaos; no author takes the time to search for the correct article, everyone relies on the correct implementation of the WP Naming Conventions.

And as I learned quite fast, there's no use trying to get consultation, because none is to be had. I requested the creation of Cullinane with alomost the complete article in the RFCreation; some weeks later I made this account and did it myself. Many Move Requests were the same. If I had sought for consultation, that would have been ignored for as long as I sought, and after I moved the article because no one opposed it (or was interested, for that matter), we had the same situation as we have now.

So frack WP:BRD, let's find the right place for Cullen, Moray, and fix the links without further flaming, bickering, flabbling and other enthropy-enhancing chaos. Sorting the links that must be altered from those that point to the right article will be hard and long enough. --User1812011 22:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Cullen, Moray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cullen, Moray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cullen, Moray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]