User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 31

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.

Untagged disambigs

I see you've been going through the very outdated list at User:RussBot/Untagged disambiguation pages, so I'm having the bot update it for you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I was going to make that request once I got through the existing list. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tidings of Comfort and Joy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wiccan (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) 18:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Surname holder lists on dabs

From User talk:Xezbeth#Surname holder lists on dabs

Unfortunately, I've removed it on quite a few dab pages already. I'll leave it alone from now on. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've restored a few of them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

dab page question.

I'd like to thank you for introducing me to the {{plant common name}} template that you substituted for the dab template on Umbrella Plant. It makes a lot of sense. Now, if I may, I want to ask a question about dab pages and their conditions of usage.

As an example there is Elk-sedge (disambiguation), which I created a few days ago after finding there was a one way redirect from Elk-sedge to Carex geyeri. Any student of Anglo-Saxon paganism knows that elk-sedge is the common English name for the Z rune and the archaic name for Cladium mariscus. And, so I found, it is the common name for Carex garberi. So a dab page was needed. Or so I thought until I learned of the {{plant common name}} template.

My question, after that rather circular introduction, is how can I do this better the next time such a problem comes up? Should I create a {{plant common name}} page with a hatnote to the single non-plant name, do it the way I did it or do it another way? Thanks Trilobitealive (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Since the Elk-sedge (disambiguation) covered more than just plants, a disambiguation page is needed, and I've cleaned it up. If the rune weren't there, but you wanted to create a plant set index, it wouldn't be titled with "(disambiguation)", but probably something like "List of plants named Elk sedge". In this case, if you really wanted to, the set index could be so created, and both the set index and the rune could be mentioned in the hatnote on the Carex geyeri page (with {{two other uses}}). Let me know if I can make anything else clearer (if indeed I've made this clearer!) -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! That helps clarify. And I do like the style of your cleanup. I've used the two other uses template before and so that makes sense if one should use the plant list plus one other - trouble is that there are always more pages turning up. Trilobitealive (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If I can chime in, there's no reason to leave the redirect if you turn up other plants with the same common name, or other subjects in general. Turn the redirect into a disambiguation (if there's another subject) or a set index (if other uses are only for plants). Plant common names are often ambiguous; elk sedge is used roughly equally (going by Google hits) for C. garberi and C. geyeri, but also with substantial usage for the rune and C. mariscus. Plant articles are usually titled by scientific name per WP:FLORA, leaving common name titles available to disambiguate as needed. There are only a handful of cases where "List of plants named x" might be appropriate (there'd need to be a common name overwhelming used unambiguously for one species of plant to merit having an article title at the common name in the first place). I'm not sure if the rune is usually hyphenated, but the plant is not. I'd suggest making Elk sedge the disambiguation. Plantdrew (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Most authors hyphenate the rune and some don't. The dozens of pages of discussion by various Pagan writers on the rune itself and the European plant from which it was derived all seem to come from their various interpretations of the translation of a couple of lines from a single 18th century copy of the Anglo-Saxon Rune Poem. I just did the initial dab page because the original redirect I stumbled upon in my search was hyphenated. Then when I found the other redirect and found the most common usage for the two Carex plants was unhyphenated I thought it was best to leave well enough alone. Trilobitealive (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

As in the Buckthorn example below, where I just now moved the SIA from Buckthorn (disambiguation) (and deleted that) to List of plants named Buckthorn. Any time a set index can't go to the base name, whether a handful of cases or many, it should go to "List of X named Y" (or "Y (set index)", or other format specified by the project), not to "Y (disambiguation)". I have no opinion or objection to the title "Elk sedge" for the SIA, or to any other title other than "Elk-sedge (disambiguation)" or "Elk sedge (disambiguation)". :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing disambig-plants

Thank you for working on cleaning up the mess I've exacerbated over the last few months. I didn't really grasp the SIA/DAB distinction when I started adding that template (and apparently neither did a number of other editors whose example I was following), and I've been lazy in continuing to use it as a shortcut for {{Plant common name}} since I figured out what SIAs were. I assume your edit leaving Buckthorn as a DAB ([1]) was an oversight, or am I still not fully understanding the use of DABs?Plantdrew (talk) 04:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I left it as a dab since it had (disambiguation) in the title and was properly formatted as a dab. I've now moved it to the "List of" title, which is also workable. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to search for pages containing the "Disambiguation|plant" template? (sorry, I can't figure out how to make the "|plant" display properly on your Talk page) I suspect most of the cases where the DAB template was used with a plant parameter are really going to be set indices, and I would like to clean them up, but I'm not sure how to easily find these articles. Also, would something like Parsley (disambiguation) really qualify as a DAB, or would the other uses just be considered partial title matches (I realize most of the plants with parsley in the name are partial title matches)?Plantdrew (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd use Google, although there may be a better way. This search will get what you want, but is dependent on Google's cache clearing on the ones you've recently done. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the search tip. I'm not sure why I was so set on running the search through Wikipedia. I went through and checked them all, converting to SIA as appropriate. I can keep myself busy for a while with variants of that search (replacing "plant common name" with tree/flower/species/etc). Plantdrew (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Reel to reel.

Thank you for your management of the reel to reel situation. LCS check (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Category-related question

What sort of articles should be covered by Category:Lists of people sharing a surname? Just "list of" surname articles or every single surname article that happens to have a list of names? —Xezbeth (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

According to the intro on Category:Lists of people sharing a surname, articles that include a list of names can be categorized there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I know what is says, but does the category even serve a purpose if it contains every surname article with a list of names. That would be over 30,000 articles, at which point it would be exactly the same as Category:Surnames. If you were editing Cameron (surname), would you remove the category or leave as it is? If you would leave it, then should it not be transcluded with the surname template rather than Category:Surnames? —Xezbeth (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not much help there; I'm not familiar with it, and I see little enough reason for the lists themselves to exist, let alone the category tree around them. But not every article on surnames includes a list of people sharing the surname, so the categories would largely overlap, but not completely. And yes, an option on the surname template to use one category, the other, or both might be useful. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for answering. I don't really want to start tinkering with templates so I'll leave things be for now. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Kevin Saunders

Would you have any sources for newly created article Kevin Saunders (video game developer), currently at PROD? BOZ (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Somaya Reece

This is not the article talk page. Relocated to Talk:Somaya Reece#Somaya Reece

Red Line

Hey J. I wonder if you could take a look at the following DABs:

• Red Line
• redline (disambiguation)
• red-lined

At first blush, I thought these should be combined, per WP:DPAGES. But at the bottom of that policy section it states that DAB's should be split if they become inconveniently long. However, I think many of the targets violate WP:DABRELATED and WP:PTM - especially for Red Line. Still, as mentioned by another editor on Talk:Red Line, there may be some logic in keeping these targets. How would you proceed?

(Note that blue line, green line, etc. are combined on a single DAB, albeit there aren't as many non-transportation terms.) Hoof Hearted (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

They appear to be OK separate; the lists don't overlap. I have prodded the partial-title-match list Red-lined though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking for some direction

HelloJHJ. As a member of the DAB wikiproject I was wondering if you could give us some direction and/or suggestions at this thread Talk:John Waters (1934 Academy Award winner)#Possible page move. Any input that you can give would be appreciated. No obligation though. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 21:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your suggestions. It is much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 00:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JHunterJ. You have new messages at Darkwind's talk page.
Message added 00:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Darkwind (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit summary

Well played! I can't even argue! [2] Red Slash 18:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, good. I had doubts after posting it, but I meant it in the spirit it seems to have been taken. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Enforcement stub

Could you explain why you think the unreferenced stub at enforcement is an appropriate article? As I mentioned on the talk page, the stub is about management. The word enforcement is not a typical use of the word. It's more proper that such a general term be a disambig page i.e. Enforcement_(disambiguation). II | (t - c) 23:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You created a WP:MALPLACED disambiguation page. Have the unreferenced stub deleted through prod/AfD and then move the dab to the base name, or use WP:RM to request the dab be moved to the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

River Lake

Firstly I should have checked the DAB for the edit history before posting on talk MOSDAB..it looked good because you'd already fixed it up! :) It is always a pleasure to see your fantastic work JHunterJ. I'm curious now...placement of SIA in See also (and similarly further disambiguation pages). MOSDAB hints placing further disambiguation pages in the See also - I'm currently assuming that it doesn't mean all further disambiguation, so I place them as if they are articles, the same for a SIA (although that is much more tricky for readers as they aren't as transparently not a final destination compared to a DAB). Long waffle, important question. (Feel free to move this to talk MOSDAB). Widefox; talk 10:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

SIAs list this one should not use parenthetical qualification, but "List of ..." titles. In this case, though, I was thinking about it (as I fell asleep last night) and I think perhaps the SIA should (a) not be limited to the Nova Scotia lakes and (b) be moved to the base name. I'll raise it on the dab talk. But back to your question: if there are articles destinations for the topics that are ambiguous, those should be included in the dab list. If there are related lists and nav pages, those should be in the See also. Readers shouldn't have to navigate both a dab page and a SIA (or a second dab page) to reach the topic they sought. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I see. Having quickly looked at WP:DDAB (and the example which currently includes a DAB link in the body), I'll have to start again and review before answering! Widefox; talk 17:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, at least WP:DDAB notes that it's rare. I don't see the need for dabs in the main list: either the ddab's entries are ambiguous and should be in the main list, or they aren't and the ddab link can go in the See also. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED

It is rather inappropriate for you to use your administrative tools to undo an administrative action on an Somaya Reece, an article you are so heavily WP:INVOLVED with. I would ask that you please self revert the changing of the protection and either discuss it with the administrator and let the uninvolved administrator make that call or take it to WP:RFPP as appropriate. Thank you. - SudoGhost 12:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

In upholding the earlier AFD, it was rather inappropriate for the original closing admin's protection level to be changed, and there's no reason for permanent salting. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done [3] -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Die Young (song)

I wanted to create a redirect from Die Young (song) (an incomplete disambiguation) to the dab page Die Young, but (song) appears to be a protected page: It didn't offer me any Create this article tab or line. Could you take a look and create the redirect if possible?--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

A quick follow-up: I checked the protection log (duh!) and the page was indeed protected indefinitely 7 months ago. Would it be more polite of me to take this request to the sysop who protected the page?--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds like a good approach. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do.--ShelfSkewed Talk 13:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Kamenicky

Hi JHunterJ. I see that you are cleaning up the Kamenicky disambiguation links. Unfortunately, I don't think the resulting redirection of links makes a lot of sense now. The actual disambiguation page (with three entries to individual articles) should be at Kamenicky (disambiguation) or Kamenicky (that is, without any diacritics), because this is the common nominator of the three entries and also what most English speaking people will be able to type. All spelling variants with diacritics should redirect there (for as long as there are not more similarly named articles which would justify their own disambiguation pages). Otherwise, on a Kameničky (disambiguation) page, it is somewhat odd to list Kamenický Šenov or Kamenický encoding, this would have to go under See also. Kameničky and Kamenický are not the same, but what they have in common is how an English would write them: Kamenicky, and therefore this is what needs disambiguation. And when typing Kamenicky, the primary topic is not the Kameničky article. If, by typing Kamenicky, someone actually was looking for Kamenický Šenov or Kamenický encoding, it is odd to be effectively redirected to a Kameničky (disambiguation) page now. Actually, except for the improved other uses hatnote, the old direction of redirects was much more logical, I think. I'm willing to clean it up, or will you? Greetings --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I thought all of the entries had the same diacritics, but I see it now. I'll clean it up. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

pre-emptive_disambiguation

Hi JHunterJ,

I mentioned you by name at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#What.27s_with_pre-emptive_disambiguation.3F. I mean no criticism of you, but held of attempting to contextualize due to the likelihood of me being more mistaken than helpful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Partially disambiguated titles

Hi Hunter,

Thank you for suggesting the discussion about partially disambiguated titles be moved to the Village Pump. I have restarted the discussion here.

Neelix (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hunter,

I have never been very active in discussions of policy changes. How will consensus be reached? Will someone eventually close off the discussion and state consensus (as happens in deletion and move discussions)?

Neelix (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement

Were you aware of the existence of this project? BOZ (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of that? BOZ (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I wasn't. I haven't thought about it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems like a great idea, personally. I was actually working on a proposal for a process pretty similar to that, but it looks like they beat me to it.  :) BOZ (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

RFD notice

Several months ago, you edited Craftmanship, which is currently a redirect to Handicraft. I've nominated it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 May 27 for retargeting, since the identical concept of Craftsmanship has a different target. Your input to help decide the proper target for both titles would be appreciated. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Darlene Pekul

Hi J,

I was wondering if you could take a look to see if you had any sources for Darlene Pekul. BOZ (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Fired off a quick check, but no hits at all. Sorry! -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. This looks like a good hit in Google books, but I am having a hard time getting any of the text to show in my browser; are you able to view that? BOZ (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I can see the quote in the landing page: "1980 - Snippet view - More editions

PASSAGES is a portfolio of work by new talents Ken Raney, Darlene Pekul, Robert Landry, Gary Cook, and Butch Guice. PASSAGES is available in a signed/numbered ed. of 100 and a regular ed. of 200: the signed ed. contains new art by ..." , but the snippet view is showing blank. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the problem I'm having too. BOZ (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Your revert of my edit

I have a suggestion, not for a specific change, but for something systemic you may find it useful to think about. Nuances of feedback to a contributor can have great impact on the contribution experience.

You reverted my edit to Ford (disambiguation). I don't care all that much about the page itself; I was merely trying to be a good samaritan by fixing what looked, for all the world, like a blatant violation of common sense, and the highly off-putting response to my efforts is food for thought.

What strikes me about your revert (reverts, actually, as you reverted me twice) is a lack of meaningful explanation of why you were doing it. On your first revert, since I saw no meaningful explanation I conjectured you might simply have mistakenly reverted it due to being very busy; in my experience, long-term active contributors to wikimedia projects are chronically short of time for the project, hence this possible explanation lept to mind. From your second revert it appears it wasn't a mistake; but frankly, it seems a systemic failure that it took a second revert just to indicate the first one wasn't a mistake, and further systemic failure that the second revert still didn't give me a rational explanation.

The problem with such situations is, I believe, that the folks doing this sort of revert are generally busy — it's hard enough to find time to identify and effect the reverts, without also having to write beautiful prose explaining each one. So perhaps thought needs to go into how to make it easy to give better edit summaries on these sorts of reverts. --Pi zero (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I see. Going in to as much detail when reverting as you did when editing is insufficient. You said "avoid redirect in disambig page", I replied "embrace redirect in disambiguation page", you assume for some reason that that was a mistake despite the edit summary, say "I'm baffled; why on earth would would deliberately obfuscate the name of the article actually being linked?", I reply "The talk page is a good place for bafflement" and rather than use the talk page to discuss it, you decide to give me something to think about. If there is lack of meaningful explanation in my edit summaries as to why the reversions were made, then there is lack of meaningful explanation in your edit summaries of why you were doing them. Please see WP:R#NOTBROKEN, WP:MOSDAB, and WP:BRD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Taking your first second sentence quite seriously, you are correct: the objective, for the project as a whole, has to be optimizing the outcome over vast numbers of repetitions of such an incident — minor edit by user A, revert by user B — and for that purpose, how much or little detail was in A's edit summary has no bearing on how clear B's edit summary should be.

Btw, the minimize-effort goal applies to A as well as to B, so that for a minor edit like this, the BRD path is usually an unreasonable escalation; if it's possible to avoid that, it should be avoided. The edit summary on the revert can have a huge impact in that regard. --Pi zero (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Taking your seriousness seriously, then you should have definitely used the talk page to discuss your bafflement rather than reverting again. Rationalizations like "BRD is unreasonable for me minor edits" are unreasonable. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I realize I've failed to convey the basic concept of what I'm trying to say to you; sorry about that. I'm not rationalizing anything, I'm not interested in rationalizing anything. I'm standing back to look at the whole incident as if it had happened to a couple of strangers (although with the added benefit of being able to determine some of what those strangers were actually thinking at the time), and asking how can the system be improved in a way that would, statistically, increase the chance that those strangers would have interacted in a better way. This isn't about the specific edits to that page, except as an example of the dynamics of the minor-edit/revert pattern. I'm trying to discuss a larger issue, which has to do with systemic dysfunctionality. I care about Wikipedia and have become deeply worried about it. In the years since I first arrived here (it looks as if I arrived at a similar time to when you did), Wikipedia's atmosphere has acquired a toxic undercurrent. Honestly, I've got my hands full struggling for systemic improvements on another sister, and would in any case break my heart tackling the problems of two separate sisters at once, or even just tackling head-on the problems of one sister as vast as Wikipedia; but I can't help continuing to think about it, and when I caught a glimpse of something that might — eventually, with some clever minds working on it — be improved, I commented (here because the topic I wanted to address was entirely unlinked from the content of that article, and therefore would seem entirely out of place on the article talk).

It may be significant, in the way I'm diagnosing the incident, that in diagnostics I identify primarily with the person doing the revert. I do this sort of thing all the time on my home project (though on a larger scale), and in order to improve the average outcome of such interactions I've had to accept that I can't afford the luxury of writing my feedback just for ideal contributors; I have to write my feedback to optimize the outcome for contributors of all kinds — contributors who are clueless, contributors who are generally clueful but specifically confused/ignorant, contributors who are inarticulate, etc. etc. So my interest in the behavior of the revertee (which in this case is me) is mostly limited to viewing it as an interesting specific challenge to general rules about how to write feedback. --Pi zero (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to NRW (disambiguation) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Willy

Hi there

Just wanted to enquire why you think the redirect from Willy to Penis is not legitimate. I accept that the article as it stands does not mention the term explicitly, but I imagine if it was fully developed it would be legitimate for it to do so, in a disussion of alternative names for the subject. And while you may think the term "willy" is childish or slang, it is nonetheless a valid term in the English language for the penis, which means that if there were no other meanings it would be a redirect. Since there are other meanings, an entry on the disambig page seems appropriate, as is indeed the case for Fanny, Cock and other terms of this nature. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Your guesses as to what I may think are incorrect. Continue discussion at Talk:Willy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

OK my comments are struck and moved to the talk page. And apologies for putting words in your mouth. I'm just trying to figure out why a perfectly reasonable dictoinary term that would exist as a redirect is being quashed.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cock may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lazarus (name) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Trinity (disambiguation) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Echo may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * "Echo", a song by Cyndi Lauper from Ya to the Brink]]''

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dungeons & Dragons retro-clones may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''[OSRIC]]'', short for ''Old School Reference and Index Compilation'', describes itself as "a compilation of

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Battle of the Blues

Thank you for putting it back. I have been looking everywhere for the exception, and still can't find it. Please point me to the guideline. Many thanks. Oh, and while we're on the subject, would you consider that a set index? Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"Linking to a redirect can also be helpful when the redirect contains the disambiguated term" WP:DABREDIR. I saw your note that the phrase does not occur in the articles, though. In which case, the redirects should be deleted, and if that leaves no WP ambiguity, the dab should be deleted as well. It could be made into a set index, since all of the ambiguous terms are members of a set, but it doesn't have to be (IMO). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, dear. The plot thickens. Now there're three things. :)

• A: The WP:DABREDIR guideline you cite doesn't really talk about piping. It talks about the target page. What I am looking for is the justification of hiding the target articles with piping, which guidelines say we shouldn't do.
• B: Please refresh my memory. Where did I write that "note that the phrase does not occur in the articles"? I can't find that.
• C: The set index thing is really confusing and I'm not even sure why it's a big deal to differentiate. I know you do a lot of dab page work, so if you say that "it doesn't have to be" then it makes me feel like the whole thing is a bit fuzzy anyhow.

Sorry to bomb you with so many things. Sometimes I have trouble getting a grasp on dab pages, and am still learning. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• A: Right, don't pipe. Redirects aren't pipes.
• B: On the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Blues page; it's a good observation
• C: I'm no fan of SIAs. Often they seem (to me) to be used for disambiguation pages + additional formatting beyond what's needed for navigation. In this case, I think a disambiguation page will do (and now that an album has been added, I think it's necessary). Back when it was a list of annual cricket matches, if an editor wanted to include non-navigational formatting or information, then it could have been made into a set index article instead. Now if someone wants the additional formatting or information, a "List of ..." article would be needed instead. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Java API for XML (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Java API for XML (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Widefox; talk 17:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't orphaned, and it's not a disambiguation page. Orphan it (by updating the links to it to point to the SIAed version of the page), and I'll delete the redirect myself. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

oops double incompetence, forgot to check for backlinks and R8 didn't seem right either. Further investigation reveals Java API for XML is duplicate of Java XML. I've tidied (hopefully competently this time), pls can you delete Java API for XML (disambiguation) , Java XML (disambiguation). Seems the creator is blocked, not going to look into details. Widefox; talk 20:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted them. G6 applies (which is used by db-disambig, although not all G6's are db-disambigs). Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm glad I could rid WP of one of the SIAs I converted (in the era of me following the old incorrect SIA description that you fixed). I just saw your comment above about not being a SIA fan. Now I don't understand why we have them - seems like the worst of both - a poor DAB (navigationally) and a cheap List (reference/notability), so even if they are useful (?), are they worth the blurring between DABs and lists when there should be a clear distinction between articles and non-articles? Widefox; talk 23:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

In my biased opinion, we have them because some editors clutched too tightly to the Wikiformatting possibilities (not needed for navigation pages) and their extensive red links to things not mentioned on Wikipedia, hiding such things that would not pass muster as an article in non-article dab pages but rallying against any attempts to style the dab pages correctly. So SIAs were born. But as long as they aren't dabs, I wash my hands of them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I might have to take a break and study before making more unhelpful edits. Fixing today's edits...Talk:Tchaikovsky (disambiguation) question about asteroids, and I may have got names right at Snowden ? Widefox; talk 12:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Whodunit and Who done it (dab)

Do you think Whodunit (disambiguation) and Who Done It? should be combined as spelling variants per WP:DPAGE? Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No, they don't appear to be spelling variants, but one term derived from another. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)