Template:Did you know nominations/Culley Run

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 ^talk 21:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Culley Run

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Culley Run's official name has been said to be erroneous?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Georges Weill

Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self nominated at 21:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC).

• I love doing these waterways because they're easy as falling off a log. GTG. EEng (talk) 03:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• - Could we maybe have an ALT please? One guy says it's not the right name, but there's no reason given why his opinions on river names should be respected. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Panyd: Because it's a notable author and the book is very scholarly and well-researched. This isn't a random nobody spouting nonsense on his blog. Besides, his opinions aren't being fully respected; if they were, the article would be called Colley Run, not Culley Run. --Jakob (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• - I'll stick the red sticker on it, but Mr Brasch is a 'social issues journalist and university professor of journalism' - which is why it's not obviously apparent why this is something that is actually contentious, rather than a social issues journalist being iffy about a name. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I would accept this as an RS, though I might phrase the hook as "has been said to be erroneous". EEng (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Can any random other editor agree (if he agrees) and tick this? EEng (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Full review: New enough, long enough, well referenced, neutrally written, no close paraphrasing seen. Hook ref verified (through Google Books snippet view) and cited inline. QPQ done. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)