Talk:Thirukkovil Temple

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sri Lanka Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sri Lanka 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.Sri LankaWikipedia:WikiProject Sri LankaTemplate:WikiProject Sri LankaSri Lanka articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

@

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

]

@

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]

@

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]

@

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

@

enforcement action.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Well. There was only one point,

WP:PG. --5anan27 (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:RS does note count as "significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources".--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]