User talk:Peter James

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:Peter James)
Jump to: navigation, search



"4 no consensus to override previous consensus" - which previous consensus? Peter James (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave that one for Jc, Peter. - Dank (push to talk) 22:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The previous RfC on PC2. - jc37 21:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
From the list at Wikipedia:Pending changes#Timeline the most recent is Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2013 (62% support) closed without reaching consensus primarily because the circumstances in which PC2 would be used weren't clear enough. If you regard that as an earlier stage of the 2014 RFC, Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC 1 (55% support) was the most recent, so unless you're referring to an earlier discussion, or one not clearly linked from the timeline, there was not a previous consensus. It looks like a an RFC on a specific use, with "oppose", "support" or "neutral" options, could reach a clearer consensus, rather than the multiple questions and disputes over implicit and contradictory positions that affected the 2014 RFC. Peter James (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Your revert of my entry in VFD[edit]

Hi, concerning your edit

I realize that now the "disambig" macro says

This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title.

and you deleted my entry because it would not refer to a specific page (although there were several links to pages talking about "VFD" in that sense).

Now I think in former times, a disambiguation page also often contained small "stand alone" definitions which would not justify a page on their own. Picking a random example, Passion features many entries (e.g., songs) where only a link to the band or composer of the song is found. Not so much different of the entry I added, IMHO. — MFH:Talk 03:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Entries such as the songs in the Passion disambiguation page should link to articles in which the titles are mentioned according to the guideline; the only article linked in the VFD entry was to initialism, which doesn't mention that initialism, and I thought that it was unlikely to be added there or created as an article. According to WP:Disambiguation guideline, "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia" - a search for the relevant words from the VFD definition in articles only produces one result, the VFD disambiguation page. If a mention is added to an article, an entry can then be added to the disambiguation page. Peter James (talk) 07:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)