User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Poetic Justice (1993 film) VS. Poetic Justice (film)

I replied to you back here but you didn't answer. Did you not see it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 11:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a question for the film article naming convention guideline editors. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etna Township

I'm confused: what did you do? And how did you delete it twice without restoring it in between? Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history for Etna Township, Licking County, Ohio now goes back to January 2007. It includes some of the edit history that was formerly on Etna, Ohio, a dab page. To move the edit history of the township article from the dab page to the (current) township article, I:

Deleted the dab page Etna, Ohio
Restored the dab page edit history for the township
Moved the resulting Etna, Ohio page to Etna Township, Licking County, Ohio (clobbering the article that was there), without leaving a redirect behind
Deleted Etna Township, Licking County, Ohio
Restored Etna Township, Licking County, Ohio, selecting all the combined deleted edits except my own move
Restored the rest of the Etna, Ohio edits, that were just for the dab page.

I didn't realize that would show in the page logs as if I had deleted it twice in a row. That's odd. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense now, thanks. Add the township article to your watchlist temporarily; it should show up as two deletions like it did for me :-) Nyttend (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Set index image

Hi JHunterJ: I left a message for you over at Template talk:Dmbox#Set index image.

--David Göthberg (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. Commented there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buu

Could you do me a favour? I was hoping that you'd perform a "disambig style repair", especially since the page looks like it needs one. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa

Perhaps an unusual post to leave for someone, but I wanted to thank you for nominating Tassedethe for administrator. I don't know the user beyond reviewing their contributions as part of that discussion, and I don't recall ever bumping into them in my travels here. However, I watch the Rfa discussions from time to time, and I see how difficult it can be to get momentum behind a nomination for a "specialist" candidate — someone who concentrates on a particular niche here and is mostly interested in having access to the tools in order to make working in that niche just a little easier. It wouldn't be such an issue if the toolkit was sold by the piece but, since it only comes as a set, those Rfas can be a real uphill climb. I was pleasantly suprised to see how solid the support in this particular case was and happy that it was ultimately successful. Assuming they prove to deserve the trust placed in them, and I have no reason to assume they won't, this becomes another data point in the argument that specialist admins aren't necessarily a bad thing. Anyway, again, I just wanted to say thanks — I think you've done a good thing here. Happy dabbing! Mlaffs (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It was nice to pass it on, since I had a similar path to adminship. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otaki

IIRC, the guidelines advise against such edits, right? WP:MOS-DAB#People was all I can find pertaining to that. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Fixed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV-tag should remain during a POV dispute

I had tagged the MOS:DAB with {{pov|guideline}} to indicate an ongoing WP:NPOV dispute. Per long-term Wikipedia policy, such a tag should not be removed during the process of resolving the dispute. I am NOT angry at you for ranting with your message "Disruptive edits" but please, let this be a wake-up, that you tend to jump to conclusions, which violate Wikipedia policy. Here's a hint: If a Wikipedia editor is experienced enough to use a POV-tag and/or Template:ombox, then consider, politely, asking them why they added those into a page, rather than claim disruption. Just a word to the wise... -Wikid77 (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As was answered then, one lone voice crying out against consensus does not make a dispute. I am NOT angry at you for mistaking my activity for ranting, but please, let this be a wake-up. If a Wikipedia editor is experienced enough to use the tags, then I expect them to be considerate and polite and work with consensus. You have been engaged in discussion about your misunderstanding of the purpose of disambiguation pages on the project talk pages; there is no need to disrupt the project pages themselves during this discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dab

Hey there JHunterJ, how you doing today? Had a question, and I noticed that you're pretty active in "dab" stuff so I thought I'd drop by and ask you. I was inclined to add the WP:SOCK link to the sock dab page, but I see it's not been accepted. I'm familiar with the general practice of not referencing ourselves in articles too. Personally I don't see it as a "self-reference" in any way, but before I go any further, I'd like to research it a bit. Is there a thread on this kind of thing that may have been discussed in the past? Something where I could read up on a "community input" discussion on this type of dab? Thanks. — Ched : ? 16:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added it as a hatnote, which I think is fine even on a dab page. I've seen such hatnotes on other dab pages. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

works for me. thanks. ;) — Ched : ? 18:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dayton

When "Dayton" is typed into the search bar to the left, I see Dayton, and Dayton (disambiguation). When I click on Dayton, it takes me to Dayton (disambiguation). I feel that Dayton, should take me to the (Dayton, Ohio) page and not back to Dayton (disambiguation). Sense I am not a Wiki. admin. I cannot make to appropriate move for the pages. If you could fix that, that would be great. I am not the only one that sees a problem with how the Dayton and Dayton (disambiguation) pages are. P.S. Other cities such as Clevelend, Ohio: If you type in just cleveland, it takes you to (Cleveland, Ohio) like it should. (Just an example)Texas141 (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed based on Talk page, standing intro, and incoming wikilinks. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Work! Im happy to see the change.Texas141 (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Arneson

HI there,

Just wanted to say Hi, after having passed my recent Request for adminship, and to thank you very much for your help with Dave Arneson's article in the wake of his passing! There are articles on other early designers of the game from the 1970's era that may need work, such as Brian Blume, Mike Carr, Tim Kask, Robert J. Kuntz, and Jim Ward, and many other articles in the D&D game designers category (and its subcategories), if you want to do more work on this important subject.

You may have noticed me saying that I wanted to get Arneson's article up to "Good article" status; I intend to do so as a tribute to Dave. We at the D&D WikiProject have already gotten the following articles promoted to GA: Gary Gygax, Wizards of the Coast, Dragons of Despair, Drizzt Do'Urden, Forgotten Realms, Tomb of Horrors, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, White Plume Mountain, The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Planescape: Torment, Dragonlance, and Against the Giants, and have just nominated Neverwinter Nights 2, so I don't see any reason we can't do the same now with Dave's article now that you and others have helped to improve it greatly.

Any further help you can give on this article would be appreciated! Drop by the project's talk page, where we are discussing our Good Articles, and ask questions or offer assistance. Thanks again! BOZ (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, just an update! :) I have nominated the Arnseon article for GA a few days ago. If you're interested, you may wish to place the review page on your watchlist and wait for the review to be picked up. That way you can help out when a reviewer begins to make comments. Thanks again for help in working on this article! BOZ (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tree peony

Hi. I reverted your edit to Tree peony; it is a legitimate dab page because the common name does in fact apply to multiple species. Also, Tree peony is an exemplar dab page used by WikiProject Plants. --Una Smith (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not, since it does not in fact apply to multiple Wikipedia articles. However, the incorrectly named disambiguation template has been renamed and no longer categorized it as a dab page.[1] -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boke see the discussion at Project Disambiguation

This rushing to conform to guidelines when the reasoning for not doing so is being carefully laid out why (groundwork is necessary for understanding) is contrary to sense and civility.

There is no mandate to ignore other concerns in the disambiguation guidelines. The guidelines explictly grant flexibility.

I repeat, rushing to conform to guidelines WHEN it has been explicitly asserted there is a reason, is inexcusable.
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. It is not enough to assert that a reason exists. The editor who asserts there is a reason for ignoring the rules still must work with consensus, and the flexibility in the guidelines does not mean that navigational pages might be rendered so as to hinder navigation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Noted for the record)
Proofreader77 (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AWB: "2×" instead of "2x"

It seems like this has been solve. A number of users agreed that × is better than x for "-times". Could you please add a rule to TypoRegex or General fixes now? --bender235 (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. What shall we match? Any digit or sequence of digits followed by an x followed by a space or punctuation or nothing (to avoid changing 2x4 or 4x4, per the MOS)? What about CD-ROM speeds (CD-ROM#Transfer rates)? All pages with titles beginning with 1x, All pages with titles beginning with 2x, All pages with titles beginning with 3x, All pages with titles beginning with 4x, etc. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure actually. Probably only (sequences of) digits followed by an x and followed by space. --bender235 (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would still get "24x CD-ROM". Can you make the request at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos? I'm not sure if it will be false-positive-avoiding enough to add. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LSD

Hi JHunter,

I started a request for move at Wikipedia:Requested moves. I didn't know quite what to do because as I hope you see my philosophy of incremental editing (every change must stand for itself) means quite rightly it is easy to revert something knowing that it won't break; if you dislike it. I think that's a fair slap on the back for myself that the changes I have made don't break the existing articles whatever the result is.

OK so the technicalities done, and I have undid the change that LSD goes straight to lysergic acid dethylamide, that is one of thirty meanings. It must needs discuss this if it is considered a really primary meaning; personally I was searching for pounds, shillings and pence. You're probably more experienced editor than me so can point to technicalities or whatever, but another experienced editor is kinda on my side.

There's no argument here that I want to "win", I just want to be a good Wikipedian. To have a definition on a dab page is just plain wrong, in my opinion, it's bleeding obvious if it has multiple meanings not to define it with one meaning. So I'm gonna undo that too. Can we take this to Request to Move, or somewhere discuss? As I say I don't know the best place to discuss it, it was suggested under WP:Disambiguation page.

I have got distracted editing other stuff around this (nothing that would impact your or my chouce) so I'd better save this now before I lose it!

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the sound advice of User:AndrewHowse we are taking this to WP:WikiProject Disambiguation. I'll put a note at WP:RM saying so. SimonTrew (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While that conversation is going on, please check out WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It is perfectly normal to have the base name, even if ambiguous, go to a single meaning and the disambiguation page be linked from that primary topic article by hatnote. See also JFK, FBI, WWW, etc. So what's bleeding obvious to you is counter to the current consensus of how primary topics work. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was in rather a hurry since my internet connexion is a little unstable (seems OK now), so I didn't put that very clearly but wanted to set down at least a semblance of my arguments. I think fairly easily summed up:

Lysergic acid diethylamide is the most common topic, and I think little dispute that it's primary
BUT if so, by your own argument it should then be titled LSD not Lysergic acid diethylamide.
The dab page should not define the acid since there are nearly 30 other definitions (that's why it's a dab page)

I think the two issues (primary and dab) can be kept separate for the sake of argument. On the dab page I think acid should come first, in fact Acid links to lysergic acid diethlamide (not to LSD).

I've deliberately not wikilinked these article topics since of course they may change!

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, what is primary topic for a string of characters does not dictate what the title is for the article that is the primary topic for that string of characters. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JHunterJ,

Thanks for your comments. I've added others. In case of any doubt, by "argument" I just meant an intelligent discussion, we're not at fisticuffs yet (I hope!) And please excuse me in one place I got your username wrong, but because of a later edit I could not go back and correct it.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wasn't taking it harshly, but I was trying to point out that it was an explanation of what the guidelines currently say, not an argument of what they should say. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply more fully on the project page, but my basic argument is that I think that the guidelines say exactly what I want I want and expect, and you think differently. That's the issue to resolve, I think, and I don't mind too much which way it falls; we may perhaps decide that the guideline needs tightening up? Cos deffo I think plain sense says what I say (no need to repeat it) and WP:MOSDAB says that too. SimonTrew (talk)

Re: May 2009

I was civil during several exchanges, and Croctotheface had refused to deal with the situation under discussion as it actually existed. Then he put up a posting definitely lacking in civility, to which I posted a quick remark to the effect that I found his laughable but due to time constraints would not be able to genuinely deal with it until the next day. Your subsequent post, warning me about my alleged lack of civility and saying nothing about his, was indefensibly hypocritical, to say the least. I was provoked, remain unrepentant, and nothing you can say will alter that. Please do not try further. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relocated to User talk:Tbrittreid#May 2009

Due to your refusal or inability to deal with the actual reality of the thread under discussion, I have removed the subsequent thread about it from my talk page. Any further postings from you along the same lines will be similarly removed, albeit with no comment here. Please cease and desist. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Warning remains in history. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Favorite

What are you talking about? This is purely a WP:ENGVAR difference in spelling. You are the one doing the cut and paste moves. Please stop this silliness. Nor is there any reason to exclude the sports etc meaning. Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relocated to User talk:Johnbod#Favorite

Brian NelsonC

Can you point me to the discussion or consensus or RM for this move? I don't see it anywhere. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Brian Nelson#Requested move, of course. "The result of the move request was moved to Brian Nelson. The disambiguation page may now be found at Brian Nelson (disambiguation) -- Aervanath (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)" -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see now. I've made a new move request. If you have any suggestions on how to improve it in case it is not clear. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Luna (disambiguation)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Luna (disambiguation), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

It's unlikely anyone would enter "Luna (disambiguation)" as the name for an article. Only link to it was from Lunar's "See also" section, which was resolved by removing the "(disambiguation)" part of the name in the link. No need for a dismbiguation page to link to a redirect to another disambg page.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

Reverted prod per WP:INTDABLINK. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I replied on my talk page. Thanks for pointing that out to me along with a more clear explanation. The policy is actually rather unclear and probably should be mentioned in WP:REDIR. Maybe under the section "Redirect to special targets". —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 22:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two concerns

1. What's the word on adding templates to dab pages, such as on Sakura (disambiguation)?

2. Could take a shot at the entry in Shadow (disambiguation)?

Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask on Talk:Sakura (disambiguation)
Shots taken. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. For what's its worth, I avoid templates like {{nihongo}} on dab pages, unless the dab page is titled with kanji. But I don't think there's a specific guideline against it, unless you count the extra blue link it puts there. So page consensus would be good. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opéra (disambiguation)

Hi. I'd like to explain that I have reverted because I am in the middle of restructuring references to 'opera' and 'opéra'. When I've finished perhaps you'd like to have a look at see if it needs any changes? But at the moment it's not helpful if the redirects all go to opera. --Klein zach 12:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few things:

Until it's "done" (or ready for whatever), consider working on it on a user subpage instead of the main space.
Until it's ready, do not link to it from Opera (disambiguation) or remove any of the Opéra links from that dab page
While you're working on it, familiarize yourself with WP:MOSDAB so that the page will be formatted correctly.
While you're working on it, discuss your reasons for thinking that the presence or absence of an accent should make for separate dab pages on the page's Talk. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I think the reasons for not working on this in user space should be obvious — it's not an article. Anyway it's finished now. Please use the aforementioned talk page if you want to suggest a way of structuring it all better. I'm completely flexible and open to ideas. However please note that 'opera' and 'opéra' are two different words not one. Monoglot editors sometimes think accents are of no significance, but there are important differences in the way words are used in different places. --Klein zach 23:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the comment about "it's not an article" -- user pages are good places for working on drafts of pages that aren't ready for Wikipedia yet. And I'm not a monoglot; Wikipedia editors understand that many Wikipedia readers have a hard time typing accented characters, so disambiguation pages need to give them navigational assistance, not lectures on the evils of restricted language learning. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Parker

Now how to rectify an entry like this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, the linked article would be better-written, but I took a shot at it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

School and the dab project

Oops, careful who you accuse of being "disruptive". That is a serious charge – and not one a committed administrator should be tossing around so lightly. If you look at shoaling and schooling, you will find a thorough account of "schooling" in the "Overview" (thorough, given the articles is only four days old), including common regional usage as well as how the term is used by specialists. References are given, including the classic reference to Pitcher. But I am wondering what makes you think I should be accountable to you on this matter? Is this another case of an administrator setting himself above content editors? --Geronimo20 (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... childish. I see you have, yet again, reverted my edit to School (disambiguation). Well, let your silliness prevail, to the diminishment of Wikipedia. I see you are not an administrator open to recall. You should be. --Geronimo20 (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relocated to User talk:Geronimo20/Archive 6#School and the dab project

I don't understand you, and I don't want to get into a pointless fight. Are you saying I should not have entered the facts on the dab page, but should have discussed it on the talk page? Is that what is bothering you? And please don't duplicate our exchanges on my talk page. If you want to "consolidate" this stuff, do it on your own talk page. --Geronimo20 (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I find it easier to follow a conversation in one place, typically where the conversation originated -- in this case, your talk page. Especially when you're asking about what I said, it's easier to see what I said where I said it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So why all this confrontation? And why are you saying I made three reverts? Anyway, just as an aside, the lead of shoaling and schooling is better now, so how about that – we actually achieved something. Let's just drop the hatchets. --Geronimo20 (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you opted for "all this confrontation" instead of WP:BRD, but otherwise I can't explain it. I didn't say you made three reverts, but I didn't say anything about reverts here, so (as I pointed out) discussing it here is not useful. I'd be happy to have you drop the hatchet if you have one; I'm not carrying one myself -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've read WP:BRD. Hadn't seen that before. It's good, so thanks for that :) --Geronimo20 (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why your continuing (and inaccurate), reversions of this dab page and the corresponding mos are not disruptive, considering that when I made one accurate entry followed by two reversions, you charged me with being disruptive. Also, I was not asked to discuss the matter on the talk page before you subjected me to that incivility, whereas you have been asked, and yet continue reverting without discussing the matter. --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure WP:BRD hasn't changed, and applies to the other editor too. But I'll point out the simplest solution on the talk page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of high schools in South Carolina

Apologies. I did think that all titles used capitalization in all but certain words like "and," "of," "in," etc... Charmedguy18 (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Wikipedia articles don't use Title Caps unless the article subject needs Title Caps (movies, books, etc.). See WP:CAPS -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig question

Hello JHunterJ - I have a seemingly simple MOS:DAB question that doesn't appear to be addressed on the MOS:DAB page. Should blue links be included in an introductory line (outside of the case where a primary topic is included in the intro)? For example, should 'wolfling' (with piping) and 'Spanish' be actively linked to in the introductory line of the Lobato dab page? Thanks in advance for any light you can shed on this for me. Cheers, ponyo (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are not typically needed; they do not link to things that are ambiguous with the page's phrase. If they are ambiguous with the phrase, they should either be the primary topic ofr should have their own entry in the dab list. Wolfling on Lobato, if Lobato were a dab page, would fall in to that category, I think -- someone looking for wolfling might search for lobato. But Lobato appears to be a surname-holder list article (with a couple of "see also" entries at the end, not a dab page, so it wouldn't need to follow the dab rules (and shouldn't be tagged as a dab), but could use the anthroponymy style. I believe that often includes links to the articles about the name meanings. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks for the quick response! ponyo (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stringer (disambig)

In the changes you made to the disambiguation page Stringer, why did you leave Stringer (surname) separate from the category of given names? Is this some style? I is kind of silly, IMHO, since having names in one spot and again in another. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standard disambiguation practice. Stringer (surname) is a list article about the surname (in theory). Stringer (given name) isn't substantial enough to exist yet, so the contents that would be in it are relegated to a separate section of the dab. See WP:MOSDAB. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

JHunterJ, you have new messages on Wikipedia_talk:Redirect#Should_there_be_a_link_to_Wikipedia:Example_of_a_self-redirect —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 17:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

Please disreguard. I deleted my most recent post.Texas141 (talk) 06:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julian disambiguation

I've just noticed that you have moved the Julian disambiguation page back to "Julian", then split the non-human referents into a "Julian (disambiguation) page. You did this without any discussion on the matter. In so doing, you have made more complex the use of the article name "Julian" for the one historical figure that holds a claim on it. I'm sorry, I don't understand why you have made this change when the content was obviously one of disambiguation and would normally have been indicated so, ie one would arrive at such a page to disambiguate a Julian. Your claim is that it is a "malplaced dab". You needed to explain yourself on the discussion page before making the change.

One of the reasons why it has been hard to move the article with the POV name "Julian the Apostate" to its correct place as "Julian" is because there was already a disambiguation page by that name. (The other major reason is the erroneous claim that "Julian the Apostate" is the most used form, which is no longer correct.)

(And by separating the Julian disambiguation data from the explanation of the meaning of the name the significance of "Julian" will be lost there. Why "Julian" Alps or "Julian" calendar? The answer is unavailable as you have changed it.)

In order to float a poll to give the "Julian the Apostate" article a chance to get a non-POV title is to have the name available. The name had been so for about 27 days, when you decided to call it a "malplaced dab". A recent poll had rejected "Flavius Claudius Julianus" because it wasn't the most representative form of the emperor's name, though a few who rejected that name would have supported "Julian".

Can this issue be resolved? -- spin^control 13:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I resolved was one of a malplaced dab and a combined name article and non-article disambiguation page. The introductory text for the name article was obviously not one of a non-article disambiguation page. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages for the full explanation of what a malplaced disambiguation page is, but in short it's when "name" is a redirect to "name (disambiguation)". Since there is no current consensus to move Julian the Apostate to Julian. If later change in the consensus determines that Julian the Apostate is the primary topic for "Julian", the name article currently at Julian can be moved to Julian (name) (rather than Julian (disambiguation), since it's a name article and not a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of various entries on SOAP dab page

Why did you delete many entries from Soap (disambiguation)? Is there a rule that entries on dab pages must have Wikipedia articles to be listed? I think that a lot of the entries you removed could be useful to someone who is reading a page that uses the acronym "SOAP" for a meaning other than the one used on SOAP and doesn't understand from prior knowledge what it means. I believe they should all be restored, including the link to detergent. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia articles, and each entry needs to have exactly one blue link to an article on Wikipedia that addresses the topic. See WP:D, WP:MOSDAB, and WP:NOT#DICT. The identification of other acronyms could be added to Wiktionary though. Detergent is still linked, in the "see also" section. -- JHunterJ (talk)

Akuma

Either this guy is really misinterpreting the guidelines or I missed out on something. Care to shed light here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, piping in descriptions is still OK, by WP:MOSDAB#Where piping may be appropriate. Edited on Akuma. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]