Talk:Mardyke (UCC)

Requested move 5 December 2016

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 to Mardyke (UCC). (non-admin closure) Bradv 21:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The Mardyke → ? – Mardyke and The Mardyke should not name two different articles; nobody distinguishes the two concepts based on the presence or absence of an article. See WP:THE.

• The Mardyke should redirect to Mardyke
• Maybe Mardyke (disambiguation) should be moved to Mardyke
• Maybe Mardyke should be moved to something like Mardyke (neighbourhood)
  • I believe Mardyke, Cork should {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} to Mardyke Mardyke (disambiguation)
• The Mardyke should be moved; possible new names are as follows (arranged in my order of preference):
  1. Mardyke (multi-sport venue)
  2. Mardyke (UCC)
  3. Mardyke Arena
  4. Mardyke
  • Note also that Mardyke (cricket ground) is different from the multi-sport venue.

- jnestorius^(talk) 15:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi. A good point and well spotted. On the two main scope questions:

• For the article/subject currently at Mardyke, I would personally leave this as it is (as it is the supra-entity for most of the related topics). I do however agree, as proposed,^nb1 that Mardyke, Cork also be added as a redirect to that title.
• For the article/subject currently at The Mardyke, I would certainly support a move. Either to Mardyke (UCC) or Mardyke Arena as proposed. Personally I prefer the latter as it is a natural commonname. (Mardyke (multi-sport venue) is also a solid suggestion. But might lend to confusion with the tennis club or cricket club).

Happy to help with discussion or any moves as needed. Guliolopez (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

nb1: My apologies, I actually don't think "Mardyke, Cork" should redirect to the article currently at Mardyke, but rather to the dab page currently at Mardyke (disambiguation). I have amended my comment above to reflect this. jnestorius^(talk) 23:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support move The Mardyke either to Mardyke (UCC) or Mardyke Arena as proposed. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi and Guliolopez: The reason I don't favour Mardyke Arena is that that name refers only to the indoor portion, not the wider campus which includes pitches and a running track. The venue is notable, chiefly if not exclusively, because major events were staged there at various times before the indoor part even existed. I don't think disambiguator multi-sport venue could lead to "confusion with the tennis club or cricket club", since both of those are single-sport venues. jnestorius^(talk) 11:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough on the "Arena" qualifier. Let's just go with the "UCC" qualifier then: Mardyke (UCC). Anything would be better (as you note) than using "The" as a qualifier. Guliolopez (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, point taken. I have struck out the Arena option in my comment. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

So lads, what do we think? It's been the guts of a month since this discussion was opened. Unlikely anyone else will chip-in at this stage. We happy with the (compromise) move to Mardyke (UCC)? Guliolopez (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mardyke (UCC). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720132031/http://www.basketballireland.ie/superleague/mens/profile.jsp?id=MTA5 to http://www.basketballireland.ie/superleague/mens/profile.jsp?id=MTA5

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) 03:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Name

@Guliolopez: "Mardyke (UCC)" is not used anywhere else but on Wikipedia. The ground is widely known as "The Mardyke". The page is not being used by any other article. It seems ridiculous to me not to use the real name of the subject. Djln Djln (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Djln. You are not a newbie editor, so I am surprised to hear "it is not used anywhere" as an argument against a DAB suffix. That is what a DAB suffix is. A (granted sometimes semi-artificial) qualifier to distinguish one use of a term from another use of a term. The "(UCC)" suffix was chosen as a qualifier because - as was raised in that RM - using the word "the" as a prefix qualifier does not sufficiently meet the expectations of disambiguation. (How is a reader or a searcher going to recognise that the word "the" prefixed is something that separates two different uses of a similar term? Hint: They won't.) Please consider reverting the change and reopening the thread if you feel strongly about it. But unilaterally overriding a previously discussed and previously agreed consensus move (especially one that was policy-based) is not really in keeping with editing norms. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Guliolopez: Why are editors obsessed with writing gibberish. "The Mardyke" is the proper name of the subject. There is also disambiguation for to clear up any misunderstandings. You really made a mountain out of a molehill here. Djln Djln (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I will keep it simple then. Did you read the thread above? Did you read the linked guideline? Why do feel that this policy and this consensus discussion do not apply here? Or to your edits? Guliolopez (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Guliolopez: Yes I read the thread. Lots of back and forth and suggestions for name that are inaccurate and not used to describe the subject. I could understand if there was another "The Mardyke" but there is not. What is the problem with using it. Please keep your reply simple and spare me nonsense about reading guidelines that will put me to sleep. Djln Djln (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Guliolopez: Great solution. Now dozens of articles are linked to a disambiguation page instead of the correct article. Great contribution. Well done on making Wikipedia look sloppy, inaccurate and amateurish. You should be proud Djln Djln (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Djln. Nice tone. On the three points. One, if you don't like the policies or find them complex, please propose changes to them. Two, if you don't like the outcome of a discussion, then reopen it, don't just ignore it. Three, that DAB issue is easily fixed - I will do it tomorrow. (FYI - This thread opened with a simple/impartial query. You have turned it into something else. I hope you are equally proud of speaking to another good-faith editor in this way.) Nite. Guliolopez (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Guliolopez: If you don't like my tone, well tough. I don't particularly like your patronizing attitude but hey ho. You have made a mess of this issue and Wikii is left with a badly named article. You have failed to offer any reasonable explanation as to why the correct name can't be used. Instead you have chosen to waffle on about guidelines. Not helpful Djln Djln (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Djln. It is very simple. "The Mardyke" is the name of the area. "The Mardyke" is also the name of a sports ground in that area. The project cannot have two articles with the same name. The project solves this problem by using natural language or parentheses disambiguation. Using the word "the" as the disambiguation qualifier is not enough. As was agreed above. And as per the solution agreed above. Several years ago. If you are still unclear about this explanation, then perhaps the other users who contributed to the original discussion and move (Bradv, In ictu oculi, Jnestorius)) can provide a clearer explanation than I. I am done being abused for querying a unilateral/contra-consensus move. Guliolopez (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The first part of my previous proposal was The Mardyke should redirect to Mardyke, but it seems that was not done, since The Mardyke currently redirects to Mardyke (disambiguation). @Djln: do you believe that the UCC sports venue is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of "The Mardyke" but not of "Mardyke"? I don't believe it is the primary topic of either. Your statement I could understand if there was another "The Mardyke" but there is not is false: both the cricket ground and, more importantly, the neighbourhood, are "the Mardyke", not just "Mardyke". jnestorius^(talk) 22:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The vast majority of articles by some margin when referring to "The Mardyke" are about the UCC sports ground. The others you mention have little or no mention in other articles, except when used on templates. This was a pigs ear of decision and Guliolopez is just sulking because I have pointed this out. Djln Djln (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I've done a check of Special:WhatLinksHere/Mardyke (UCC) versus Special:WhatLinksHere/Mardyke, which is tedious because most of both are transclusions. I now think:

• Mardyke should be moved to Mardyke (neighbourhood)
• Mardyke (disambiguation) should be moved to Mardyke
  • The Mardyke redirect target should be changed in sync to the new Mardyke disambiguation.

It is true that there are far more links to the venue than the neighbourhood, but I don't think that is sufficient to tip the balance. Most inlinks to the venue are articles about competitions where it's mentioned in passing, typically the "venue" column of the results table/infobox. I venture to suggest that most people referring to the venue as "the Mardyke" are aware that it is named after its neighbourhood. Editors in such cases are well used to pipelinking and usually careful to check the target is correct. (Quick quiz: without looking, which of the following link directly to the stadium: Ibrox, Anfield, Twickenham, Tannadice, Tynecastle, Wembley, San Siro, Maracanã?) Look at the links for the other venues listed in 1976 Cork Senior Hurling Championship for example. OTOH, there are enough bad inlinks to "Mardyke" which ought to point to "Mardyke (UCC)" or "Mardyke (cricket ground)" to convince me that the neighbourhood is not well enough known to be the DEFAULTTOPIC. Hence my suggestion is to promote the dab to default. jnestorius^(talk) 19:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jnestorius for taking the time to look into that. Personally I think the area is the primary topic. As, of the 4 other topics, the 2 in Cork (the sports ground and the cricket grounds) derive their names from the area. And, of the remaining 2 in the UK, the estate no longer seems to use the name. The river/tributary is, admittedly, a fairly reasonable candidate however. And, like the Cork topics, does seem to influence the naming of other GEOFEAT subjects in the area. As such, while I think the status quo is largely OK, if others agree, I am happy to support the moves that you propose. (Certainly I don't see the argument for the sports ground to be the primary topic above all others...). Guliolopez (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)