User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 25

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.

1T and other 2-character disambiguations

Hi there- I noticed you were redirecting a number of 2-character disambiguation pages. In almost any case, these combinations have many uses. As an example, there were about half a dozen missing from 1T, and probably many more. I added a few I found. Would it be better to leave them as disambiguations and add more rather than eliminating information that might help users find the 1T for which they were looking? It seems that a redirect is less useful than something which aids navigation. I'm happy to discuss it if you want. Jokestress (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Only redirected the one -- then mistakenly left the edit summary for the next few edits which weren't redirect-making. Since you found others that indicated 1T is ambiguous again, I agree with your restoration of the dab page. The dab page as I found it was less useful than a redirect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Bud Shank image

Hello JhunterJ, any special reason why you <!-- --> the image of Bud Shank? Lotje ツ (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Re this edit: It looks like one image per section. Re this edit: Any special reason why you uncommented it? -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Re the edits: there is no image of any female, don't whant anybody telling we are discriminating here, and no, there is no special reason for uncommenting, except for the fact that I thought the text would be too long. Lotje ツ (talk) 06:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Bud's not a female. I'm not telling you we are discriminating here. I don't think the text isn't too long; it's a list. It would be acceptable with no images. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Suozzi deletion discussion

I don't know how closely you are watching the deletion debate for Suozzi, but since you're the only other participant I wanted to let you know I added a comment there about the changing circumstances. Your position was based in part on there being two notable entries on the page, and that is no longer the case.--~TPW 16:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping! -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep re-introducing the 2001 date error in Lawrence Lessig?

Twice now you have reverted inline external links used for citing primary sources which were already described in news reports cited earlier the paragraph.[1] There are plenty of examples where this linking style is used. Why are you insisting on the 2001 date, even after I mentioned it in the edit summary? What is the particular section of WP:EL which you believes justifies this change? Dualus (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the year. Please stop introducing the unneeded external links to the article despite two separate editors reverting them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing this on Talk:Lawrence Lessig. Dualus (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi JHunterJ! Thanks for your last edits of MOS:DAB. It's a lot clearer now. LittleWink (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello JHunterJ/Archive 25! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

WAM

Unlike your assertion in this edit summary, I think there is evidence that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is known by the acronym WAM.

1. Alexander Raskatov wrote 5 Minuten aus dem Leben von W.A.M., recorded on Nonesuch Records by Gidon Kremer[2];
2. the album Change of Address has a track ""Hello Mr. W.A.M." in obvious reference to Mozart;
3. there's a ballet WAM by Mauro Bigonzetti to music by Mozart mentioned at List of Aterballetto productions;
4. Talk:Mozart and many other Mozart-related Wikipedia talk pages use it;
5. de:WAM, fr:WAM mention Mozart;
6. Acronymfinder & The Free Dictionary have it.

I think you should reconsider your removal. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please add that information to the Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart article first. If the article doesn't indicate that the topic is commonly referred to by the ambiguous term, there's no need to list it on the disambiguation page. Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You're shifting the goalposts. Your edit summary said "-Mozart (not known as WAM)", which I refuted; now you're asking that the Mozart article should contain supporting material. This is a former featured article and still of above average quality; thankfully, there's no "Trivia" section, but adding this kind of material might start the slippery slope and I have no intention of doing that. It is possible that people come across the abbreviation "WAM" in various discussion forums or social media where context might be missing: those readers would benefit from a disambiguation page which mentions Mozart.

MOS:DAB says: "the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the specific article they want quickly and easily." – it doesn't say that the purpose is to document usage; Wikipedia:Disambiguation says at WP:DABABBREV to "consider adding it [the abbreviation] to the target article". I explained why I find that not the right course in this case. Both guidelines recommend using common sense. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I used "not known as WAM" as shorthand for "the article Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart gives no indication that topic could be titled with the ambiguous term WAM; that is, the Wikipedia topic is not known as WAM". That's part of the disambiguation guidelines. Without them, the disambiguation pages become clogged with tangential "matches" (like , cluttering the pages and reducing their navigational function for readers who are looking for topics that could reasonably be titled with the ambiguous term. If it is too trivial to be mentioned on the article (where WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS can be applied), it's too trivial to disambiguate. That's the common sense that has been applied. The goalposts haven't moved. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For all your work improving disambiguations, especially the ones I make! Jokestress (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Woot! Thanks, Jokestress! -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Solitaire

Hi, I don't know what you were thinking when you reverted my improvements to Solitaire and Solitaire (disambiguation). But I've just started a discussion about it at Talk:Solitaire. — Smjg (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

forcing

Sorry, it was I that moved the forcing page to add (disambiguation). There's a lot of ins and outs in WP styles and procedures I'm not familiar with. How can you tell the difference between a list that needs it, as opposed to one that doesn't? Milkunderwood (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Milkunderwood! Sure, I can show that difference. If the base name has a primary topic (either an article exists at the base name, or an article is the target of a redirect that is at the base name), then the disambiguation page gets the (disambiguation) qualifier. Or, to look at it the other way, the disambiguation only gets the (disambiguation) qualifier if it can't exist otherwise. A base-name disambiguation page can be the target of a redirect with the (disambiguation) qualifier (for WP:INTDABLINK), but the other way - a base name redirect to the (disambiguation) qualifier - results in the page getting listed at WP:MALPLACED. See also WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Now, all of that makes sense to me, but I've seen it a lot. To recap:

• Base name is a disambiguation.
  • If Base name (disambiguation) exists, it redirects → base name.
• Base name (disambiguation) is a disambiguation, and base name leads to a primary topic article.
• Base name (disambiguation) is a disambiguation page, and base name → base name (disambiguation). , as a WP:MALPLACED

Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the walk-through - I think I understand it, but may need to study your explanation some more if I'm ever tempted to move such a page again. I'll just copy this over to my own talkpage for my reference. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

WP Disambiguation in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Disambiguation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Lame Deer (disambiguation)

Hi. Could you have at look at Lame Deer (disambiguation). I saw it on the daily disambig yesterday and it seems like it has once again been malplaced. I'm not sure the editor really understands the reason it was moved and I'm not convinced about the redirection (done by another editor) without prior discussion. Since you've been involved with it before I thought you might do the honours. Thanks, France3470 (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent and so very speedy! France3470 (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Natalia Kills

I'd like to thank you for fixing that page, and apologise if my edit was construed as vandalism - I simply saw a page that was not rendering properly and attempted to fix it. I see there was more extensive damage I wasn't able to address at the time.

Kind regards,

Horst. 

Horst.Burkhardt (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was moving through pretty fast -- I realized after I hit the rollback that there was more to be undone from the IP editor. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

May I ask what was going on there? I didn't realise there was an edit war until I looked at the history to go "now who managed to break the page that badly?!" ... so yeah. I gather this has been happening for a while? Horst.Burkhardt (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Natalia Kills in current interviews says her real last name is Cappuccini, so, despite good sourcing on her real real name, readers will often try to "fix" the article to reflect that. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox help

Hi J, thank you for fixing the dab page Karren (name). I appreciate the learning experience! I don't want to keep making live mistakes, so I was wondering if you could advise me about my next planned change, Oeuvre (disambiguation). If you have time, please check my sandbox and let me know if you would change anything (or just go ahead and change it there yourself). Thank you very much in advance, SteveStrummer (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I made the dab page now: thank you very much for your help! I would love to fix the capitalization on ŒUvres but I don't know exactly how, or if it's even necessary. Can I leave that up to you? SteveStrummer (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Prikubansky

J, I remember your rigid stance on the dab pages (often at the expense of the readers), but what you did there is simply unacceptable. The descriptions are factually incorrect, and a link to a set index on localities is just a good as a link to, say, a surname page would be. I will reference the set index tomorrow, too, if that's what you are having a problem with. Please continue on the dab's talk page if you have further concerns. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 21, 2011; 21:32 (UTC)

E, I too remember your stance of terming the current consensus for dab pages as my rigid stance (often at the expense of readers). The descriptions came from the articles and the SIA. No, the link to the red-link-filled SIA is not just as good as a link to a surname page would be. Please do reference the SIA if you like -- if it ends up with encyclopedic coverage of the topics, then it might be a useful link for the dab entry. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

J, as far as I remember (and I do), I'm not the only person to point out your rigidity in this area to you, as well as the problems it creates, but oh well. I didn't mean it as an offense, by the way, but merely something to think about.

As far as the descriptions go, I have no doubt you looked at what the target pages say; unfortunately, you didn't take time to read them thoroughly, which lead to the descriptions being incorrect and/or misleading. That can happen to anyone, of course, but what I find sad is how quickly you rushed to revert me without even bothering to ask what's wrong. I wrote or significantly contributed to all of the pages linked on that dab, so do you think there is perhaps a slight chance that I know what I'm talking about?

On the final point, it would really be more helpful if you explained why linking to a valid set index (even if it happens to consist only of the red links today) is different from linking to a valid surname page (which is basically the same thing as a set index on surnames). Declaring something doesn't help your point at all. On a similar note, regarding the subject at hand, how is red-linking to one page (which happens to have a backlink for reasons completely unrelated to its level of notability) is more helpful to readers than linking to a set index which lists five more places by the same name (all of which are in a forty-mile radius, mind you!), which can (and now does) provide their coordinates, and which can (and will tomorrow) be referenced? I would also be thrilled to learn how updating and maintaining two separate pages (a set index, some value of which you seem to see, and a dab) is a benefit to the editors—for example, how often do you intend to return to that page to check how many more of those entries now have backlinks and can be copied to the dab? Lest you are wondering if I'm being sarcastic again, I'm not—I am genuinely interested in hearing your take on this situation. Will you oblige me with an answer?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 22, 2011; 04:13 (UTC)

E, as I remember (and I do), you spend too much time assuming bad faith. I tagged the dab for cleanup and asked for other eyes over at WT:D. See you there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, we could continue accusing one another of bad faith till cows come home; I remember. Kind of gets old after while, which is why my question of the day is this: can you answer my questions above or not? Extra eyes are all good, but I'm also interested in your take. Please?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 22, 2011; 16:01 (UTC)

WT:D. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see answers to any of my questions, either from you or from anyone else, there. If you can't answer them, just say so.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 22, 2011; 16:48 (UTC)

I don't see your questions in the appropriate places either. I saw your claim that you could also accuse me of assuming bad faith, but that's not quite accurate. I assume that you simply don't understand the guidelines or disagree with their goals or implementation. OTOH, you have accused me several times of intentionally trying to hinder the reader or encyclopedia because of what you call my "rigid" adherence to those guidelines you disagree with. And I am not interested in dancing to that tune here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

J, the day you realize that my understanding of the guidelines is actually just as thorough as most of the Disambig Project participants' will be the day you start saving yourself a lot of nerves when dealing with me. I have nothing (well, at least not much) against the guidelines in their present form, and I do believe that there are a lot more situations where they work than where they don't (or don't work well enough). The problem, however, is that in the field of knowledge I'm contributing to they don't work more often than they do due to the peculiarities of that field, so it makes all the sense to consider occasionally deviating from what the guidelines say (hence my "rigidity" remark). For what it's worth, I always try to minimize that kind of deviation. Another problem is that when I try to show you the reasons behind why I do certain things a certain way, your responses are limited to either "but the guidelines say differently" or "you are accusing me of bad faith, so there". That's not a productive response at all, how do you not see that? All I asked you above is how come you think that presenting a reader with one random red link (which may or may not be what the reader is looking for—it's a total crapshoot, as a matter of fact) is better than directing that reader to a page with a set of six links to choose from, complete with helpful metadata to use in further research. Speaking of dancing, you are dancing around this simple question pretty efficiently. If you have a good reason, why wouldn't I listen?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 22, 2011; 17:40 (UTC)

Please take a look at Conjugation

Hello. I now you do a lot of disambiguation work - please take a look at this, I have tried to fix it this way (is that correct way to do it?) And should a computer function be in the section matematics? Christian75 (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of it seems to be [[WP:PTM|partial title matches. I've moved those to the See also section and used some redirects where appropriate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Square Deal (disambiguation)

Hey, JHunterJ, please help me improving this disambiguation page. Cheers.--Hydao (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Good job! :). There are probably a few more pages containing Square Deal, I'll add them later or so. Thanks.--Hydao (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. But please use Talk:Square Deal (disambiguation) for further improvements. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This Time Next Year

Re: This Time Next Year (disambiguation)‎. Is the album really the primary topic? Sure a move request would have been the better strategy but as far as I could see it was pretty marginal one way or the other so I decided against deleting the dab. Just curious as to your reasoning, France3470 (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It was the primary topic before the recent move, and the incoming links were still there. IMO, the question is: is the album really no longer the primary topic? With no answer to that, the status quo should hold. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Although I do not know the movers thoughts, my further analysis of the situation was that it is pretty likely that neither subject is the primary topic, and that such a move wasn't as controversial as I initially believed. But I agree, the onus is on the mover and they should do it through the WP:RM process. I'll leave a suggestion on their talk page. France3470 (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Page Move

I have reverted your page move of Eastchester – Dyre Avenue (IRT Dyre Avenue Line) to Eastchester – Dyre Avenue in which your edit summary was (unneeded qualifier). Due to many New York City Subway stations having the same name, it is necessary to disambiguate by line name. Please see the Station naming convention for more information. Thanks, Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Other stations needing qualifiers isn't a great reason to make all station article have qualifiers, though. I've asked the question at the project talk. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I've moved your question to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation#Using qualifiers when no ambiguity exists for better visibility to project members. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind...

I made this change to your comment. I wouldn't usually correct other people's spelling but I feared possible confusion with the alternate spelling being introduced in an RM and DAB discussion. By all means, feel free to revert and slap me with a trout if I went too far. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

CV

I don't understand the rationale for your change to the CV page. LyleHoward (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:PIPING -- dab pages display the title linked. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)