Talk:Thirukkovil Temple

Thirukkovil Sithira Velayutha Swami Kovil→ Thirukkovil Temple

Hello Obi2canibe, I noticed that you moved again the page name reasoning over redirect: There is more than one temple on Thirukkovil. Speak with any eastern Tamils. The term "Thirukkovil" (in Tamil, prominent temple or temple of the temples) once solely referred to this temple rather than the village with the same name. You should note that the village got its name just because of this temple. Yes, Thirukkovil village has more than one temple. But no any recent temples in either this village or DS division, can substitute the privilege of Thirukkovil temple which was once the royal temple of Batticaloa cheiftains. See where google results bring. Since a person often pilgrim to Thirukkovil, I would like to remind, people here colloquially refer the temple premises as "Tirukkōvil pati" or "Patiyaṭi" to distinguish it from Tirukkōvil, which barely indicates the village nowadays. Pati is also another Tamil synonym for Temple.

Exactly, Thirukkovil Sithira Velayutha Swami Kovil is still the official name but Thirukkovil Temple fit in here precisely according to the public usage. Thirukkovil Temple doesn't misguide anyone towards the village but it just sounds like Koneswaram temple, Ketheeswaram temple. If Thirukkovil temple seems like just an exaggeration to be equaled with (Thiruk)Koneswaram and (Thiruk)Ketheeswaram, please look through the history or visit east coast. --5anan27 (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@5anan27: Here in Wikipedia we use WP:RS to name articles, not what editors consider to be "privileged" or flimsy Google results. For anyone who's interested S. Arumugam, a reliable source, calls this temple Chitra Valutha Kandaswamy Kovil, Thirukovil in his book Hundred Hindu Temples of Sri Lanka: Ancient, Medieval and Modern. Editors like 5anan27, who are only interested in promoting their home towns, are lowering the quality of Wikipedia.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Obi2canibe:, if the only problem is WP:RELIABLE, it is totally ok for me to indicate University of Sri Lanka (1970) and McGilvray D.B (2008) as well as dozens of colonial documents indicating this temple as Tricoil pagoda which obviously means Thirukkovil Temple. I thought that you might have had a sound knowledge on Sri Lankan Tamil affairs and it is why I tried to explain the local circumstance for which I regret now. Note that this name change never violates WP:CRITERIA or WP:RECOGNIZABLE. Wikifying articles about wikipedians' own hometowns is never mentioned anywhere a punishable offense. You edit / wikify here in which areas you are either familiar or interested with. It is just what I do. Before teaching me about the WP:WIAN, study WP:PA as a veteran wikipedian. --5anan27 (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@5anan27: It's a pity that you didn't even bother to read the source you provided to defend your position. McGilvray actually says of the temple "known here as Cittiravelayutacuvami [Chitra Valutha Swamy] (Lord of the Beautiful Lance) at Tirukkovil". Could you actually provide a reliable source which calls the temple "Thirukkovil Temple"?--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Obi2canibe: I literally mentioned McGilvray just because I have not only read this book but also another book written by him called Crucible of Conflict and his number of papers based on east coast. Whatsoever, I'm not here to prove you who am I. But I would like to remind you that I never defended anywhere that Thirukkovil Temple did not possess the name "Citravelayudha Swami Kovil". And kindly note that I agreed above: Exactly, Thirukkovil Sithira Velayutha Swami Kovil is still the official name but Thirukkovil Temple fit in here precisely according to the public usage. You asked WP:RS rejecting public usage. I showed McGilvray, in which it is pity that you just read first three sentences and totally omitted the below part and smiled at my ignorance. Please look at 11th sentence under the topic 5.10. I feel sorry that you already neglected another reference given by me which one's reliability is questionable - according to you! What I wonder was citation given was obtained from the then highest educational institute of the country, University of Sri Lanka! Huh!

Still I could show you another reference from Duke University Press. So now there are three references plus local custom which used / accepted the term Thirukkovil Temple.
Dear veteran wikipedian, shall I know what do you want further and what will satisfy you moreover? --5anan27 (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@5anan27: We need to establish the WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources. You moved the article without providing any sources in the article. After being challenged by me you have provided two sources, The Ceylon Journal of the Humanities and John Holt, which use Thirukkovil Temple. There are two sources which call it Sithira Velayutha, Arumugam and McGilvray. Therefore we don't have any sort of consensus about what name should be used, just your belief that you know best because you are from the local area. That isn't how encyclopedias are written.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Obi2canibe:

1. This article is not dealing with any rocket-science. It is an article of history, culture and sociology. You can't just ignore the knowledge of local citizens on the subject who make the history, culture and society around the topic.
2. I moved the page into an already existing name among public. I did not created a new name intentionally. Absolutely there's no benefit to me by this name change.
3. I showed it two times. Stop exaggerate it. McGilvray uses both names. So the ratio becomes 3:2 which subsequently selects former name as suitable one.
4. I'm arguing with the references of both literary sources and public usage. Eliminating the application of common people, what is the WP:COMMONNAME you are referring here again and again?
5. Since it is used in reliable literary sources (I've added them in the article now), there is no violation of WP:RS or WP:RECOGNIZABLE. That is it. --5anan27 (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@5anan27: Wikipedia works on policies and guidelines, not the knowledge of "common people". WP:COMMONNAME is part of WP:TITLE, Wikipedia's primary policy on deciding article names. Editors who ignore policies and guidelines may be the subject of enforcement action.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well. There was only one point, WP:RS, which is already fulfilled, worth to consider in your argument. I'm ready to meet any enforcement actions if I violated WP:PG. --5anan27 (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@5anan27: Having three WP:RS does not over ride WP:COMMONNAME, particularly as I have provided WP:RS for another name. Three WP:RS does note count as "significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources".--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]