Jump to content

User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 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.

War horses

I don't know what to do with the doggone war horse dab. The Horses in warfare article was originally titled "war horse" and the title was changed years ago after some huge debate I have now (thankfully) forgotten. Now we have the issue of the movie, which is why someone (not me) moved the War horse redirect link from Horses in warfare to the film. Turning it into a capitalization issue isn't going to solve the real problem, which is the temporary popularity of the movie. I moved stuff to the lower case title, as to get the caps you have to search in caps. I guess I wonder (I don't favor it, but to avoid a dab or move war with the film fans) I wonder if "war horse" should be the dab page rather than the WP:PRIMARY page? What are your thoughts? Montanabw(talk) 23:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"War horse" is not an ambiguous title. "War Horse" and "Warhorse" are; the dab page might be titled either one of those, and "War Horse" has the plurality. I do not have a preference if War Horse (disambiguation) is moved to War Horse, however, if the idea is that there is no longer a primary topic for "War Horse". Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The nuances of this week's disambiguation policy make my eyes bleed. Whatever works, but the next time someone comes along and complains to me that it's title case instead of sentence case, you can deal with them, OK? Montanabw(talk) 01:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I hadn't come across that issue before, but I can go leave a comment in the page if needed. Sorry for the nuisance -- wasn't my intention; I just came across the page as a WP:MALPLACED disambiguation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Had a move discussion/war a couple over whether the word "horse" was or was not an integral and inseparable part of a breed name and hence, to be capitalized. I am so tired of capitalization wars that I could puke. (American Quarter Horse is title case, because no one refers to them as a "Quarter", but Arabian horse is not, as people constantly just call them an "Arabian." There IS a logic to it, but go figure) Montanabw(talk) 21:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Palmer and disambiguation

Greetings! I saw that you reverted the changes I made to Michael Palmer and Michael Palmer (disambiguation). In my opinion, these are all prominent individuals, and therefore Michael Palmer should redirect to Michael Palmer (disambiguation). These are the page stats for November 2011:

  1. Michael Palmer : 1577 pageviews
  2. Michael Palmer (politician) : 1718 pageviews
  3. Michael Palmer (musician) : 222 pageviews
  4. Michael Palmer (Canadian football) : 504 pageviews
  5. Michael Palmer (British Army officer) : 52 pageviews
  6. Mick Palmer : 162 pageviews

The fact of the matter is all the individuals have received significant page views and therefore an article on one individual cannot be deemed as primary. Can you please reconsider your action? Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Michael_Palmer indicates that the poet may be primary. Since the changes you made resulted in a WP:MALPLACED disambiguation page (which is how it found me) and broke those links, I reverted. The pageviews do indicate that there may no longer be a primary topic; if so, the disambiguation page should be moved to the base name and the incoming links should be retargeted. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have moved the disambiguation page to the base name and incoming links have been re-targeted to their appropriate biographies. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lame

Bah! --MZMcBride (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but I fixed it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eidos RfC

Hello, there is an RfC concerning the Eidos page in which you have shown interest in the past. This is a small notification in case you may wish to take part in the discussion. Salvidrim! 20:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN mention

You were mentioned in a discussion at WP:AN; Wikipedia:AN#Should_editors_be_discouraged_from_asking_admins_to_justify_their_actions.3F --Born2cycle (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Dragonriders of Pern, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Freeman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon's teeth

After you cleaned up the dragon's teeth dab page and moved it from dragon's teeth (disambiguation) to dragon's teeth (and thanks for your work on that, btw), should dragon's teeth (disambiguation) now be deleted? It's just sitting there as a redirect. Engelhardt (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. If any page ever links to the page, it should use the redirect, per WP:INTDABLINK. In the past, I've seen unused such redirects deleted, and I've also seen such redirects be created by bots. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

You seemed a little annoyed at me at the Alphabet move request; I've withdrawn it now, anyway. I just wanted to say sorry if I came off as hostile, or something.. I didn't mean to. Mlm42 (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The move request was fine (although I opposed it) -- I'm often annoyed by requests for evidence from only one side, but your response to my annoyance was greatly appreciated -- not hostile at all; my own apologies if my own annoyance was too harsh. Thanks and cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ITV Companies Move

Hi JHunterJ,

With all due respect I think you may have jumped the gun a little bit with the ITV companies move. I feel that this is a complex issue and that there was insufficient debate at Talk:Yorkshire_Television#Requested_move to reach consensus on the move. Individual articles have been moved back and forth between the "ITV xxx" format and original company names over the last few years and I am concerned good faith attempts at consistency may well end up torn up before too long, all without real debate.

The crux of the problem is that, sadly, there is limited community surrounding ITV history on Wikipedia to form good consensus on this issue, which I feel is a unique one. I have been trying to raise a debate around (unfortunately with little interest) for a while now.

See [[1]] (sorry about bad link, somebody bodged the archiving) and Talk:ITV_Central#Requested_move for previous discussions I have tried to raise on this point.

My personal opinion (though I am willing to be challenged) is that many of the original company names (in particular those with long and varied histories such as Yorkshire and Granada Television) are of sufficient significance within UK broadcasting history to justify their own articles, and that although (e.g.) "ITV Yorkshire" and "ITV Granada" are nominally legal continuations of these companies, their histories under these titles are of far less encyclopaedic significance than when they were independent companies.

If you have any suggestion as to where to have a good debate and consensus on dealing with this issue could be, please let me know, because as far as I can see the whole issue at the moment is a complete mess. -- Fursday 01:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The debate at Talk:Yorkshire Television#Requested move appeared to be a new consensus. The limited participation I took as a lack of preference one way or the other on the issue. Since that discussion was linked from the other impacted pages, it was a good place to have the debate and reach the consensus. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British TV/Channels may be another to raise awareness if you disagree with the conclusion of that discussion, in preparation for subsequent move requests (either a full revert of my moves, or a partial of the ones with long histories). No offense will be taken -- I have no opinion of my own in this space. But I will say that perhaps a split of some of the information to articles like history of Yorkshire Television or history of Granada Television might be appropriate, if their original names hold their own encyclopedic significance. And thank you for the evenness of your note here -- it's quite welcome and appreciated. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Film titles

Hi, I noticed your talk on Disambiguation of TV film titles.

I've created a couple of templates, which I've intended to work even when contributors move article around:

Both of them look for a Title (film year), or Title (film), or just Title. The link goes to whichever target is found first. The difference is that the first one shows the year in parentheses.

I hope this is not too technical. Here are some examples:

The nifty aspect of the template is that if someone moves the page, the redirect is automatically eliminated. For example, if we moved The Postman Always Rings Twice (film) to The Postman Always Rings Twice (1947 film), the template still finds the movie. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Some recent participants"

You apparently refer to me, but… it is really silly. Don't think that others behave disruptively only because they are on the opposite side of some edit wars. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True. You were also apparently referring to others in the dab who were on the opposite side of some edit wars. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Science Museum

Having moved the dab to this title, I hope you are now going to fix all the incoming links, which a quick look suggests are mostly intended for the London museum to which they were being sent correctly when there was a redirect at this title. You made the move, please tidy up - I noted the need for this at the talk page. Thanks. PamD 07:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That talk page is the right place for it. The group consensus is that the title was too generic, so the outcome of the group consensus is that the incoming links should be more specific. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But will the "group" actually do any work to tidy up? PamD 12:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the group consensus was only a decision not to move Science Museum (London) to Science Museum. The closing admin of the RM explicitly said "Whether Science Museum should be changed to a dab page or redirected to Science museum is a different discussion.". That discussion did not take place (the failed RM left the, admittedly illogical, status quo which had existed for 18 months at least). You have made a decision to rename the dab as Science Museum, so it is your responsibility to sort out the incoming links which now point to the dab page. But I see you have now at least started to do so, thanks. PamD 12:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. The statement of the conclusion there was too tepid, agreed, but the conclusion was that "Science Museum" is too generic. Everything else follows, as noted in the discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thanks for fixing the Santorum disambig page that I was managing to mangle. It looks much better now! StvFetterly(Edits) 21:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That's very welcome indeed! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A toast!

Cheers!
This glass is given to JHunterJ for a hearty and good-spirited debate in the name of consensus. Encycloshave (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Must be my week for beers. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Interview

JHunterJ,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind the statistics, please review the naming criteria, be bold and please cast your support and vote

Your support would be very much appreciated, as far as I understand, a "support !vote" would help as noted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Big_Bang_Theory_%28TV_series%29#Requested_move_to_promote_clarity.2C_minimize_confusion.2C_and_make_wikipedia_a_better.2C_accurate.2C_and_precise_research_tool.21

Also, remember that the person who squatter-ed (sic) the page The Big Bang Theory is heavily biased on tv shows: 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Big_Bang_Theory&oldid=131490655 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Quadparty 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Quadparty

Doesn't this go against the comment about neutrality/non-promotion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.12.67 (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good job and my apologies

Although I've put it in an edit summary I did want to leave a note saying cangrats on the good work you've done on getting the 1966 DC article going. Also my apologies for getting the number of episodes wrong and for not searching far enough to find that it was the same Tina Packer - although since the link is a redirect to the Theater Co. that she ran it doesn't tell us much about her. Oh well, maybe someone will do an article for her one day and we can link to a better article. Thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 22:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Santorum DAB

Hi,
can you please get to some consensus on the talk page about the wording? You say it has to be your way per MOSDAB, Dravecky says it doesn't per MOSDAB. Edit summaries clearly are not sufficient to get to a consensus here.
Thanks, Amalthea 23:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DAB Expert?

You seem to be knowledgeable about DAB. I know the basics, but I'm looking for someone with a bit of experience in the subject. If that's you would you take a peek at pages like AHH (disambiguation), and AGE (disambiguation) and tell me if those are appropriate dab pages. I'm thinking not, but I may be missing something.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 03:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They include articles on topic that could be referred to by those titles, so they are appropriate. I've cleaned each one up though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why, for example AHV exists as a dab page, but what is the rationale for having a page called AHV (disambiguation)? Do we really think someone will search for that term and miss that AHV exists? I'm fine with leaving them if they serve a purpose, but it looks to me like someone was inflating their page creation stats.
I note for example that AABC is a valid dab page but AABC (disambiguation) does not exist. Why are there some xxx (disambiguation) pages and not others?
BTW, if this is no big deal, then no big deal, but while I can live with inconsistencies, I like to understand them.
At this moment, I do not understand what purpose is served by a xxx (disambiguation) page, and why some strings have one and some do not.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, ironically, I found you by looking at who was editing Wikipedia:Disambiguation, but I was looking for a dab expert, because of the edits of Eekerz. Now I see you have been in conversation with that editor, on the subject of dab issues.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AHV (disambiguation) only needs to exist if Pages that link to "AHV (disambiguation)" has any referents or if any of the Pages that link to "AHV" actually mean to link to the disambiguation page (instead of one of the topics) -- WP:INTDABLINK has more. But there's no harm in pre-creating the (disambiguation) page redirect in anticipation of intentional dab page link, although I believe there are or have been bots that create them too. So base-name disambiguation pages that do not have intentional incoming links might or might not have the (disambiguation) redirect. Some older RfD discussions resulted in the deletion of the occasional such redirect without links, but I believe it's been a while since that's happened. And I appreciate the irony. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relocated to User talk:178.40.64.34#External links

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of gaming conventions (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Recruits, Southern Front, Havoc, Recon, Spring Fever, Carnage and OGC

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crawling Back to You

Just saw your style repair edit. Is it improper to note the album for each song by the same title with the entry? I also noticed you moved the 1994 bit in the Tom Petty one, sort of a similar question. In other words, where is the manual of style for DABs? CycloneGU (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:MOSDAB. Descriptions are omitted where not needed, and kept as brief as possible (with only one link per entry) where needed. Also note that HJ Mitchell's initial suggestion to ask the question at Talk:Crawling Back to You was a good one -- I watch that page. Finally, the move left these incoming wikilinks mistargeted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just started doing cleanup between pages, so the pages that link is a stop on this tour of interlinked pages. I was also about to ask several editors - yourself included - for an opinion as well when HJ Mitchell made the change; I was going to do that because I didn't think there would be enough discussion available at the article's talk page. CycloneGU (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, the only pages now linking to the new DAB are cases of other capitalization, such as Crawling Back To You. CycloneGU (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate disambiguation pages.

Greetings! I have a project you might be interested in, as it is fairly similar to the malplaced dabs. Russ has whipped up a list of about 160 duplicate disambiguation pages - these are instances for which a disambiguation page "Foo" exists, and a separate "Foo (disambiguation)" page exists, usually with much the same content. For the most part, these can be fixed by just turning the "Foo (disambiguation)" page into a redirect to the "Foo" page, although some might require merging if the content differs. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. I will check them out. Are we striking/deleting them from the list as they get worked? -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but don't worry much about deleting them, as I'll be checking the list regularly to remove resolved cases. When the list is done, the page will be deleted anyway (although perhaps we should have a regular generation of such a list as we do with maldabs). bd2412 T 15:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited List of people from Dayton, Ohio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lakeside (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith

Hey, sorry for not assuming good faith over the "perfectly horrible" comment - although generally calling someone's opinion "perfectly horrible" might seem derogatory I can see you didn't mean it to be. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am suitably chagrined -- that's perfectly reasonable, and I will try to make sure my defenses against what I think is "mis-disambiguation" are a little clearer about what I'm fighting for. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CAMRA

If the disambiguation page is kept (which seems sadly likely), would that then mean that the hatnote at Campaign for Real Ale should refer to that dab page, rather than directly to the two alternative senses of CAMRA? So that for the sake of assorted mis-spellings we make readers do an extra click for the two plausible other senses? Or would we keep the hatnote as at present with a parallel disambiguation page, as some participants in the AfD seem to think ("There is no rule requiring that just because a "Foo (disambiguation)" page exists, it must be linked from a hatnote in the "Foo" article;")? PamD 18:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly {{two other uses}}, to link to both the Canberra association and the dab page? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

apology for warning

That was the standard warning given by stiki, Thanks for reverting, i have cleaned your page, apology -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 12:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victorious movement

Hi, you were the main admin in this move request of the article Victorious about two months ago. The result of that request was not to move the page and wait a few months to revisit the traffic stats of the disambiguation page. I have no idea if some users can't read but, in the last 24 hours this page has been moved tree times to Victorious (Nickelodeon television series). I would really appreciate if you could take a look at the most recent discussion about it here. --Simon.hess (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, and thanks for the heads-up. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, JHunterJ. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard.
Message added 17:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—DoRD (talk)​ 17:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patent nonsense?

Hi J. You recently closed a requested move discussion thusly. Correct call, IMO, but in your rationale you linked to WP:PN, "patent nonsense". In view of the heated atmosphere permeating some of these discussions, maybe it should be changed to MOS:PN, "proper names" ;) Best, Favonian (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fixed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New section

Thanks for your help. WordClerk (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly welcome, but for what? -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ilie Năstase

Does your closing suggest that WP:MOSPN#Diacritics overrides both WP:UE and WP:DIACRITICS? MOSPN is not even about titling. Kauffner (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You skipped a few points. Hi. Yes, it was quite a backlog of move requests (and still is). But to your question, no, it doesn't suggest that. The guidelines work together and are considered as a set. If you think they contradict each other, please bring suggestions to their talk pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation of Tuxpan

While working on the list of disambiguation pages with links, I noticed you moved Tuxpan (disambiguation) to Tuxpan yesterday. I'm not 100% sure, because I always get confused when I'm looking at edit history for a moved page whether I'm seeing the history of the old name or the new name, but it looks like Tuxpan used to redirect to Tuxpan, Veracruz as a primary topic. For sure, that page does have a hatnote stating such, and it sure looks like the articles now linking to the disambiguation page at Tuxpan are (all the ones I've checked) referring to Tuxpan, Veracruz. I'm wondering if we wouldn't be better served to have "Tuxpan" redirect to "Tuxpan, Veracruz" (keeping the hatnote link to the disambiguation) and have the disambiguation at "Tuxpan (disambiguation)"? --LarryJeff (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it as it was WP:MALPLACED when I found it, but I've now reverted the recent change from the primary topic. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your move to Trollhunter

Hi,

I just want to point out that the move request on the talk page was to "Troll Hunter", and that was what got the support votes. Not to "Trollhunter", which is what it got moved to. Can you please correct the move? (And unrelated to that, as one of the two that voted oppose I still think the other Wikipedia policies/guidelines and the formal registry titles should count more. But anyway, I'll accept the move if it just can be corrected ;) -Laniala (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Laniala. The conversation on that move was extensive, and I did opt for a title other than the original request, yes, as the correct name for the article in English (Trollhunter/TrollHunter was the most common in reliable sources, over Troll Hunter or The Troll Hunter). This seemed to be in line with the thrust of the conversation as well, and I noted the variation from the original request in my closing note. I don't mind if a third opinion or move review or RfC is requested, however. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For moving a page many others had passed over. --xensyriaT 16:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, xensyria! (Re Talk:Galactic Empire (series)#New move proposal) -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inverter

I just noticed that your close of Talk:Power inverter#Requested move included a move of the disambig page and the claim of PRIMARYTOPIC for Inverter. This latter part was not part of the suggested compromise, and seems to be what was widely opposed there. Discussion of it has come up at the other half of the process, which you didn't close, at Talk:Inverter (logic gate)#Requested move (just above the heading Talk:Inverter (logic gate)#References for usage in sources). I'm not sure how to proceed. Probably it would be best to have these two RMs re-closed as a pair, possibly by someone not already involved. Dicklyon (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The primary topic recognition was intentional based on the discussion at Talk:Power inverter#Requested move; although some of the participants opposed it, the guidelines provided by the supporters supported it. It doesn't appear that the proposal at the top of Talk:Inverter (logic gate)#Requested move would affect the others; if it would, notifications need to be placed on Talk:Inverter and Talk:Power inverter. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Dicklyon (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Meridian#Requested_move

Hi, at Talk:Paris Meridian#Requested move the votes are 3:3:0. Please comment there why you moved the article or please undo after you have reviewed the situation. HTML2011 (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and WP:NOTVOTE. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Inverter (logic gate)

Hi. Yes, I would like to re-open my alternate proposal. It seems the obvious solution to me. I could open a brand new proposal below, but if there is a preferred way by doing some sort of reconfiguration, please do it. Thanks. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just tagging onto the end of this, save opening a new section. Thanks for striking the "was and". - X201 (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

??? ... oh, I see: a sidebar at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Interesting case: Inverter (logic gate). – Wbm1058 (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All That Jazz

I have had a request (User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Talk:All That Jazz#Move?) to reopen discusson (revert the closure) of the move discussion in Talk:All That Jazz#Move?. As "All That Jazz is a 1979 musical film", it is 33 years old and not likely to still be current and a dominant meaning. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is still the primary topic by the criteria given at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and as noted by User:Kauffner in the discussion. On what would you base the contrary conclusion, that it is not likely to be the topic sought, when the page hits indicate that it is? -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines do not implicate an actual primary topic of the same name. They presume it with criteria, statistics, consensus, and search engines, but the guidelines are not absolute and do not have real answers to know how to meet readers' intentions. I am going to question its guidelines in its talk page, so I wonder how the talk is reached. --George Ho (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SF (Suomi-Finland)

Can you tell me where to put this info in the country article? It only has place for ISO 3166 code, while before 1993 the international country code for Finland was by wide convention SF; the ISO 3166 code only started to be recommended thereafter. I tried to find a place to put it in the country article, but as I could not I added it in the disamb. page with hidden citation for other editors. Are you questioning the validity of my citation? --hydrox (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages don't have citations. Disambiguation pages help readers navigate from an ambiguous title to an article with more information about what they're searching for. If there's no information about the use of "SF" for Finland in Finland, there's nothing gained by directing readers searching on "SF" to the article Finland. The other editors watching Talk:Finland might be able to identify where to add the info to the article, or whether it's better left off. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation pages do not have citations true, which is exactly why I added the proof of fact as a hidden comment just for other editors. But I don't see why you need to be so pedantic about requiring the article itself to use e.g. a certain acronym or obsolete standardized code that might be present on a linking disambiguation page, but not be enough relevant to appear in the main article. If there is a policy requiring this mention, I am happy to go ahead and add a footnote to Finland about SF being the former de facto country code, especially since the disamb. page is now tagged. However, I must say I would find such policy rather counterintuitive: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I can easily imagine a person searching for information on headword "SF" after seeing e.g. an old sports results sheet and wondering what is the country code "SF", which does not appear on modern result sheets.
To demonstrate my point, at least San Francisco and significant figures should also be removed from the page in question if one followed this patten through, because they neither make a clear mention of the use of the acronym.
So please do link to the relevant policy or talk pages showing the alleged consensus on requiring what you are imposing. --hydrox (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:DABMENTION. I've tagged the dab page for clean up so other editor(s) might opine. If you find other entries that need to be cleaned as well, please do. Me, I am weary of cries of pedantry from observing the guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a policy, but a MOS recommendation. It seems to make a recommendation about a specific case ("specific entry type") where the disambiguated headword is treated within the linked article. Logically, the existence of such recommendation of style for specific type of disambiguation page entries does not mean that disambiguation entries of other type (those covered in the MOS, or not) should be excluded from the encyclopedia. --hydrox (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's the consensus, as requested. You're welcome. Logically, if it you're right, MOS:DABMENTION could be deleted entirely without affecting the encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The CW

Hi, JHunterJ. Given your willingness to apply policy and not simply do a vote count when closing RMs, I am surprised that you chose not to move The CW Television Network. WP:COMMONNAME clearly points to using "The CW", while the opposers offered no policy-based rationale that I can see. Could you explain how you reached your conclusion? Powers T 14:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The exception for "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." seemed applicable here. "The CW" is certainly more common that "The CW Television Network", but the long name is accurate (it happens to be official, but I didn't opt for it because it's official), and it's a natural qualifier. I would not, for instance, have opted for "The CW (television network)". Does that make sense? -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, because "The CW" is neither inaccurate nor ambiguous -- at least, no moreso than NBC. Powers T 17:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or no less so than USA or HP or The WB? -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
USA doesn't redirect to USA Network, so it's not analogous. You have a point with The WB, but I would make the same argument for a move of that article. HP is trickier, but I think it can be resolved with reference to reliable sources, which would always use Hewlett-Packard on first reference (much as happens with human beings, where they're only referred to by surname after first reference). I don't think that's the case with television networks, which are so well known that they are almost never referred to by their full formal names... except here on Wikipedia, apparently. So I'm afraid I still don't understand how you can judge "The CW" to be either inaccurate or ambiguous. Powers T 17:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was making the analogy of USA:United States::The CW:The CW Television Network. Reliable sources counter to the "always" part:[2], [3], [4]. But you can ask for other opinions at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves without objection, until Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review is available. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that taking it to the talk page would look a bit much like forum shopping. (I'm not keen on appearing to follow George Ho's example!) But do you understand where I'm coming from -- that "The CW" is not ambiguous (because if it was, it would redirect to CW), so there was no compelling reason to override WP:COMMONNAME? Powers T 14:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand both those concerns. It was not a "slam-dunk" decision by any means. I'm not personally a big fan of the titling criteria to fall back to a title that is common but not the most common when the most common title is ambiguous, but it's the current consensus (WP:AT's "Ambiguous ... names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources"). And "The CW" is apparently ambiguous with The Crimson White, even though the TV network is the primary topic for those two topics that could have the ambiguous title. The example of The WB did factor into my decision -- I would also have no issue with a multi-move proposal for both TV networks to address, and if there's a good place for me to say so to mitigate the forum-shopping or sour-grapes stigma, let me know and I'll repeat it there. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well you said so here; that should suffice. =) But I still don't understand how "The CW" can both have a primary topic and be ambiguous. If it's ambiguous, it should redirect to a disambiguation page. Is Obama ambiguous? Is NBC ambiguous? Powers T 14:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"William Shakespeare" is ambiguous, but it has a primary topic. Thus William Shakespeare (disambiguation) exists, but not at the base name. "Albert Schweitzer" is also ambiguous, but it has a primary topic, and only one other topic, so a {{for}} hatnote is placed on Albert Schweitzer and no dab page is needed (per WP:TWODABS). And "Poirot" is also ambiguous, but as a primary topic at a different title Hercule Poirot, and a hatnote there. Yes, both "Obama" and "NBC" are ambiguous, but have primary topics, so their dabs are at Obama (disambiguation) and NBC (disambiguation) instead of at the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, when I say "ambiguous" I generally mean "too ambiguous to have a primary topic". I apologize for the confusion. So let's go back to the passage you quoted: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject ... are often avoided ..." Under what circumstances, then, are they "often" avoided? Obviously not for just any ambiguous name; there must be some other quality that defines when a name is unambiguous enough to be a primary topic, but too ambiguous to follow WP:COMMONNAME. Where is that line drawn, and why did you draw it where you did in this case? Powers T 02:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the "often" circumstances, but here the availability (and current use) of an acceptable alternative commonly used name (other than the most common one). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the example of The WB Television Network aside, I don't know that that's a frequently used metric. Generally we prefer conciseness and commonality over officialness. Powers T 23:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Music dabs

I noticed that when you edited the dab page Follow Me Home, you omitted info on the genre of music. I've tended to include it because I figure people may be looking for music that they heard somewhere, and a genre is probably the main identifier they have to work with (beyond the name of the work, anyway). What's your reasoning on the matter? Is a convention described anywhere? Thanks. ENeville (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I just haven't seen it on dabs, and it didn't seem to me to be useful. But I don't object to their restoration if that's just me. (I had a similar difference of assumption on the inclusion of years, which I now leave for similar reasons). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Enh. On a tangential and perhaps delicate subject: page views are heavily relied upon for establishing primacy generally. I've worried a bit whether well-funded parties could spike the stats. A solution is not readily apparent to me. Thoughts? ENeville (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a more hypothetical problem. Let's say you well-fund such an enterprise, what return do you get on your investment? But if it were suspected, I suppose the same "They" who can investigate sockpuppetry can also investigate suspicious stat spikings. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary-Austria relations

Hi - I was wondering if you could expand on your closing rationale. In particular, you said there was no reason not to use the standard format. But what about the argument that "Austria-Hungary relations" is nearly identical to "Austria—Hungary relations" (actually, as I type, I'm not even sure I put in the right dash there). You say that the standard format already pointed to the previous title. Which is why, if the move request had failed, I was intending to propose that we delete the standard title, as even having it appear in the search box is confusing. Would you consider re-opening the move request, or explaining your reasoning further? Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is nearly identical, and they need to be distinguished. But there are many nearly identical titles on Wikipedia that need to be distinguished, so that's not a reason not to use the alphabetical ordering of the countries here. I was unaware of the potential deletion of the standard-ordered redirect, so that didn't factor into the decision. I suppose Austria-Hungary relations could be made into a disambiguation page to distinguish between Austria–Hungary relations and an article on the international relations of Austria-Hungary, if it were created. But the discussion seemed finished (idling for several days as it was found in the RM backlog), so I don't see a need to reopen it. You can ask for other opinions at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, though, without objection, until Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review is ready for prime time. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I agree that there are many, many very similar titles on WP. But most of those are actual names of things, that we have no control over. Here, it's simply a stylistic issue. And while the hatnote addresses the issue pretty well, I agree with the person on the talkpage who thought a hatnote was actually not needed if the page stayed at "H-A relations". Not a big enough deal to stay excited about, though. Dohn joe (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AWB error.

Didn't give me the difference to properly show otherwise due to the tables on my end. There was no flags to denote it was fine, the context wasn't clear in AWB. Sorry. I'll see if I there is a way to flag it to prevent further issues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic numerals are supposed to be capitalized except in the rare circumstance of differential in numerical systems. It has one notable entry in the Oxford dictionary. The full article at Arabic numerals states this. I believe this should be clarified. I also fixed the matter of 'welsh' so it won't trigger AWB when it is in quotes. So my corrects were not entirely wrong with catholic to Catholic for relating to the church in the notes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inverter (logic gate) RM closure

You closed an RM with this edit. It looks like you used RM bottom at both the top and bottom of closure, so the finding was lost. I can edit the top to fix, but I cannot resurrect any opinion you may have wanted to express (other than your edit comment). So could you please fix the top of the RM closure. Thanks. Glrx (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Glrx (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for alerting me! -- JHunterJ (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JHunterJ/Archive_26&oldid=1146629658"