Jump to content

Talk:St Cuthbert Wanderers F.C.

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

Requested move 20 January 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is a consensus that the proposed title is both more common in reliable sources and more in line with what the MoS says for "St" vs "St." in articles using British English. Jenks24 (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


St. Cuthbert Wanderers F.C. → St Cuthbert Wanderers F.C. – to remove the dot from "St." per wikipedia naming convention and per the club's own website http://www.stcuthbertwanderers.co.uk/. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed to move So your original post was certainly misleading then. Common name really doesnt apply to a . in my opinion. Your original post read like we had a naming convention stating Saint should be abbreviated to St rather than St. In this case I am definitely opposed. As for other Scottish clubs St. Johnstone F.C. St. Mirren F.C. are the only SPFL clubs with Saint in their name and both use the . Please tell me the precedent of Scottish clubs that done use St., as I'm failing to see it.Blethering Scot 19:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Blethering Scot: I did not set out to mislead. It is an undocumented convention, demonstrable in usage. I used the word "convention" rather than "policy" or "guideline". I did not claim that it was a convention of some set of football clubs; it is a wider convention across all topics, including towns such as St Andrews and lots of Scottish schools.
This move is founded in WP:COMMONNAME, and I have provided evidence from reliable sources. I have also demonstrated that the "St" without a dot is the preferred usage on the club's own websites. OTOH, you offer only assertion.
You claim that St. Johnstone F.C. St. Mirren F.C. are the only SPFL clubs with Saint in their name and both use the ., but offer no evidence from anywhere other than Wikipedia that this is the case.
So your oppose is unfounded in policy or in evidence. It is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: First of all your opening statement mentioned nothing about commonname, so yes it was very misleading. You've also maid very incorrect statements such as as reflected for example in the names of the other Scottish football clubs. Have a look at SPFL website. Only two clubs are names Saint. St. Johnstone F.C. in the Premiership and St. Mirren F.C. in the championship. Outside the SPFL in Junior football there is another four, St Anthony's F.C.‎, St Roch's F.C, St. Andrews United F.C. & St. Cuthbert Wanderers F.C. So out of six only 2 is named without the St. So please BrownHairedGirl show me where as reflected for example in the names of the other Scottish football clubs is proven. As you've said to me show me your evidence to back up your lies. ‎ As for I dont like it thats just you trying to hide the fact you are being evasive. If you can prove common name applies to a ., then please go ahead. However dont make false statements. The . is good English.Blethering Scot 20:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Blethering Scot: I have provided evidence of common usage, and of usage by the club itself. That is what matters in Wikipedia policy.
You have offered no evidence in support of any other names, and so as noted, your comments are just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
You now seem to be trying to find flaws in my comments as if you were an advocate conducting a cross-examination, rather than a fellow en.wp editor trying to reach a consensus. Your latest statement, with its accusation of "lies" is a direct personal attack and assumption of bad faith, so I will not discuss any further with you. If you persist with such a personalised approach, I will consider seeking sanctions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
":::@BrownHairedGirl: So you are threatening to block a user who oposes your view when involved. Sorry but you started this by attacking me. Secondly saying you lied is not a personal attack. You did lie. You said as reflected for example in the names of the other Scottish football clubs. It is not reflected in the names of other Scottish football clubs. You have yet to withdraw your claim or back it up.Blethering Scot 21:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not threaten to block you; I threatened to seek sanctions, which means asking uninvolved admins.
A lie is a falsehood told with intent to mislead. I do not believe that what I wrote was false, and I had no intent to mislead -- your assumption of an intent to mislead if the assumption of bd faith, and it's a personal attack.
If you have some evidence, or some policy-based arguments, in support of your preferred title, let's hear it; so far, all youoffer is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I have offered evidence in support of the core naming policy WP:COMMONNAME, and I am not interested in forensic dissection of my contributions to this discussion with an editor whose tone is unacceptably aggressive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And i stand firmly by those words. You showed bad faith against me when saying i was showing signs of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, because i failed to back up the evidence of my correct claims. You made a statement which was entirely false and have provided no evidence to back it up. Therefore yes you were evasive and you did lie. Even after you were called out on your lies you have failed to withdraw the claim against me. So sorry but its you who showed bad faith not me.Blethering Scot 22:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you have no policy and no evidence, then there is nothing left but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That's not an attack -- the basis of policy-based consensus forming is that editors offers arguments based in policy.
You have already been asked to stop the personal abuse and discuss substance, but instead you repeat the abuse. Enough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also support per MoS which outlines clearly the conventions around British use of full stops in abbreviations. Fenix down (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure I understand what you are saying Stevie. As I observed above, the MoS is actually quite clear about convention in British English of not using a full stop when the abbrevation finishes with the last letter of the full word. Also, I am not sure I understand how the St Mirren conversation is relevant at this stage as that is still an open RM. Fenix down (talk) 09:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

St Cuthbert Wanderers

[edit]

The History section here seems to have been copied from the club's own website without acknowledgement in the text although there is link in the sources/references section. Is this a copyright infringement ?

Jamie Stuart (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St_Cuthbert_Wanderers_F.C.&oldid=1205415088"