Talk:Nuckelavee

FAC review 1

The FAC review 1 (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nuckelavee/archive1) that was retracted by candidates and closed 13:11, 15 July 2014 by Ian Rose There is not much discussed here except the lack of image, so I won't transclude it. --Kiyoweap (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I would like to remind other editors that the main image now in the article was originally supplied by me, and had been uploaded as File:Douglas-Scottish FFT(1901)-p162-Nuckalavee-illustr-J Torrance.jpg.

In the subsequent edit, Sagaciousphil replaced this with her cropped version, and lacked the courtesy of mentioning me as the uploader of the original file, which I assume was deliberate.--Kiyoweap (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any policy that says she must have done so? Aside from a lack of WP:AGF. If you feel so upset by not being mentioned, then please add your name. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

For the record it is a CC-BY-SA violation not attribute.

As a general principle, it is not okay to delete someone else's contributions, then replace it back with slight changes in your own signature... I hope you know better than that.

I uploaded the image from a book on the HathiTrust site, and the editor in question specifically complained about not having access to it (for living outside the US), so it was quite obviously taken from my upload.--Kiyoweap (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

SYNTH

In the rewritten version by Awien:

"Samuel Hibbert, an antiquarian of the early nineteenth century, considered the component nuck of the nuckelavee's name to be cognate with both the Nick in Old Nick, a name sometimes given to the Devil of Christian belief, and with the Latin necare, to kill[1]"

is more or less "correct", except Hibbert does not mention "nuckelavee" or "nuck" at all. If you cant attribute a claim to a single source, but have to find a separate source for pieces of the argument ("the component nuck of the nuckelavee's name is cognate with Nick" part) it becomes WP:SYNTH.

@Cas Liber: I already pointed out a synth issue with this portion in FAR, although what was happening for the earlier draft was different. Perhaps I didnt explain it well enough and, it looks like you didnt understand. I wasn't contesting the plausibility of the claim, to which your response would have bearing. I wasnt. Synth is a sourcing issue. Hibbert's vocabulary in Orkney is "trow/troicis" from the manuscript, therfore, "nuckelavee" or "nuck" is not in any part of his etymological discussion. The intelligence we might get from Marwick that mukkelvi is a sea trow does not change this one squat, so your response was totally moot. --Kiyoweap (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thinking back to how I came to make that edit, I think you're probably right. The other possibility is that I messed up the refs. In either case, feel free to fix. It's a shame this interesting article came to be such a battleground, but I don't intend to make any further efforts to help with it. Awien (talk) 10:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure where you got the "nuck" component part. That needs outside sourcing, and sentence needs to be restructured to avoid SYNTH.--Kiyoweap (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Not by me. Awien (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

FAR look through

I have marked this articles as satisfactory[2], but noted an unsourced pop culture section has been added since FAC. Sources should be added, or perhaps the section should just be removed, as it is pure WP:trivia. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a problem that has been introduced here in the citations post-FAC. This source was used in the original version, but is not used in the current version, and is returning a CITEREF error. I hope that the person who changed the citations is still citing the correct article, and am moving this to here until that can be checked.

• Traill Dennison, Walter (1891a), "Orkney Folklore, Sea Myths", The Scottish Antiquary, or, Northern Notes and Queries, 5 (20): 167–171, JSTOR 25516381

Since both of the original nominators are no longer editing, I am hesitant to mark this Satisfactory at WP:URFA/2020 unless someone can check this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Good call, I didn't know none of the nominators were still around... FunkMonk (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)