User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 19

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.

Riku

Hey, long time no see man. When you get back from your break, could you see if this page is better off as a name article? Wouldn't know what to do at this point, probably because it wouldn't matter either way. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks like a name article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! See ya around J. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Important Wine Project discussion needs input!

Hello, the Wine Project is currently in the process of hammering out a proposed policy relating to Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics). As Wikipedia and its wine coverage continues to grow, the need for a clear, concise guideline on how Wikipedia's notability policies such as WP:CORP, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTE relate to wine articles has emerged. Please review the proposed policy and take part in the talk page discussion Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(wine_topics)#Ready_to_go_live.3F. All input and view points are welcomed. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 21:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln--alternate proposal

It looks like the narrow-minded people of Lincolnshire have come out to defeat your proposal. I'm proposing an alternate proposal should yours fail (which, despite my support of you, it will). Rather than having five entries at the top, have just Abe at the top, and move others to their respective categories Purplebackpack89 (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jinni / Genie

Hello, I changed "jinni" to direct people straight to the disambiguation page, which I think is most relevant as there are several equally relevant meanings. I see you undid this, but you didn't add "jinni" back at the top of the "genie" page (which still reads "Djinn" redirects here."). I think one approach or the other needs to be completely implemented, otherwise it's confusing. Penelopepope (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I added it back. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

As you are an administrator, I am concerned that you are not aware of all the appropriate policies, especially when it comes to canvassing. The wording of your message at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Lincoln was highly inappropriate. Please do read up on the policies in this regard, particularly in the campaigning section, where the following can be found "Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages.". I strongly suggest you re-word your message on that page, otherwise I will be forced to take this matter further, we trust our administrators to know what they are doing, and quite frankly your actions bring the project into disrepute. Jeni ^(talk) 22:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong, Hunter. Jeni is just POV pushing and slamming accusations against anybody who disagrees with her Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And there's no need to continue the argument here, Purplebackpack89. There are enough slamming accusations to go around. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeni, I will not be rewording my message on the topic. Take the matter further as you like. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree the message you left there was not suitably neutral and thus was contra to WP:CANVASS. It is important to do your best not to prejudice those whose opinions you are seeking. While rewording the message after it has been seen and replied to is probably futile at this point, please do keep this in mind for future situations. –xeno^talk 14:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on xeno's talk. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replied there [1] in the interests of unfragmented discussion. –xeno^talk 14:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with xeno. --Una Smith (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the part about unfragmented discussion... -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol - Disambiguation bot

I'd appreciate you contributing to the consensus for the New Page Patrol disambiguation bot at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WildBot Josh Parris 03:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal and Jamal (disambiguation)

Care to make heads or tails out of this man? I'm not even sure where to add Jamal Woolard anymore. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shuffled a bit. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup query

Airport Express Train (disambiguation) - it's a bit of a mystery to me what the page requires to be better - could you clarify on the talk page please.Shortfatlad (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I applied the fixes I thought were needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poker face

Another editor recently made a perfectly sensible addition to the dab page Poker face, but I'm going around in circles thinking about the best way to incorporate it within the guidelines because it leaves two links in the same entry for essentially the same meaning: "* Poker face, a [[Glossary of poker terms#poker face|poker term]] which means a [[blank expression]]". So how would you handle it? Just eliminate the link to the poker glossary, since the blank expression article offers a fuller explanation? Or break it into two separate entries? What do you think?--ShelfSkewed Talk 16:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd split it into two entries (and did). -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Thanks!--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig

Why do you think we need drowning and drown both different diambiguation pages? Basically the same word. CTJF83 chat 17:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because they're basically different lists. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, but very similar, it's ok though. CTJF83 chat 03:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't very similar lists. Drown (disambiguation) lists 5 things ambiguous with "drown", 0 of which are ambiguous with "drowning". Drowning (disambiguation) lists 8 things ambiguous with "drowning", 0 of which are ambiguous with "drown". Keeping them separate aids navigation, since the readers who need to use them will know which page they need. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiBirthday

I saw from here that it's been exactly four years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I didn't know that list existed... -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assisted move

It seems to me that The Brighter Day (soap opera) was unnecessarily disambiguated (using a bad naming format and by a now-indefinitely-blocked user, by the way) from The Brighter Day, and should be moved back? Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 20:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fuze again

Rcbutcher has made a clearly out-of-process move. Please move back pending discussion. --Trovatore (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Trovatore (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects and WP:NOTBROKEN

Not even an hour ago, I witnessed somebody revert from [[Winston Churchill|Sir Winston Churchill]] back to [[Sir Winston Churchill]]. The original change didn't have a really compelling rationale behind it, but there isn't a particularly compelling reason to have changed it back, either — it doesn't meet any of the reasons why we might genuinely want to link to the redirect instead of the target. The only reason to revert it was upholding WP:NOTBROKEN for the sake of upholding WP:NOTBROKEN. So it's not true that any change, or even any change that doesn't have a compelling rationale, should always be reverted — while obviously there are situations where it should be, a sizable percentage of the time it really doesn't matter either way. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form" would apply in that case. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rant

Relocated to User talk:70.174.47.47#Britney

Mocha

Sorry to overwrite your version; I was working on one at the same time and found a couple more links; they were pretty similar otherwise --MegaSloth (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added your new links to the slimmer one, and avoided linking to the Yemen article twice. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I wondered how best to handle the bean; it's arguably a separate topic that is currently a section in another article, but I'm not going to press it, I nearly made your change myself. Don't you think ten entries is sufficient to introduce sections? In my view, it's starting to look a bit long with the extra links. --MegaSloth (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Batman (disambiguation)

Was the editor who made these changes correct in doing so? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Engage the editor at Talk:Batman (disambiguation) or User talk:Swanny18 first, please. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Hello JHunterJ! I have a couple of questions, and maybe you can help. I see the edit you made at Nunez‎. So I gather that, unlike what I thought, name or people lists are not dab pages? The other question is regarding Melo - I won't fight you about the primary topic issue, of course, but how are you so sure that Melo, Uruguay is it? Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The Ogre! Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy covers lists of people by name -- in general, no, lists of people who share a given name or surname are not disambiguation pages. Lists of people who share a full name are disambiguations. No one would expect to find an article on James Brown at James or Brown, but they might expect to find it at James Brown. So James is a disambiguation page, James (name) and James (surname) are anthroponymy articles (and only the surname one has a list of name-holders), and James Brown (disambiguation) is a disambiguation page.

For Melo, I'm not sure that Melo, Uruguay is it, but I can tell that Melo, Uruguay used to be it before you moved it from the base name, and most of the incoming Wikilinks appear to intend it, so it should be discussed before it is moved. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! See you around. The Ogre (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it's me again

And I require your services. I found the disam page for pitch shifter which has two choices, one for the historical and musical machine used for amendment and one for a band, which although with a decent longevity should not be there. Could you please remove that page and redirect pitch shifter to its conventional, most-often used purpose? It seems to me to be a One Beat case again. Cheers. PRB88 (T) 19:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shuffled them around to Pitch shifter and Pitchshifter. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For all the underappreciated work you do, thanks. PRB88 (T) 19:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig Master

It seems to me like the Al Roberts disambig page should be eliminated, and the content for Al Roberts (American football) moved there with a hatnote for the minor fictional character redirect Al Roberts (One Life to Live). What do you think? — TAnthony^Talk 18:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed the change on Talk:Al Roberts#Primary topic? -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And completed it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:PathfinderRPG.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PathfinderRPG.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Blurpeace 20:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I went ahead and deleted it, since it is now properly orphaned. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

?

Are you seriously arguing that boke/boak does not mean vomit? Just click the wikitionary link. 128.237.247.47 (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am seriously arguing that the Wikipedia article vomit is not ambiguous with "boke" or "boak". See my response on Talk:Boke. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People Like Me

I removed the hatnote since the Rhett Akins album was redirected. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that it is now a redirect, but there is still ambiguity, which is why I restored the hatnote. Merging articles and creating redirect does not need to be and normally should not be followed by removing all the wikilinks to the now-redirect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dablink

Relocated to User talk:174.3.98.236#For2

Hoop (disambiguation)

I wanted to touch bases with you and ask why you reverted my move on the page "Hoop" to "Hoop (disambiguationpage). I will be starting an article on the object itself.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because you left it as a Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages and it showed up in our list. You can start the article in your userspace (e.g., User:Amadscientist/Hoop) or as something like Hoop (object) and once it exists request the move to base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I wanted to be sure I could start the article before I did any further work. I see what happened now.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi

huh --JHunterZ (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And well met. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional

The Conditional page currently serves as a disambiguation page with articles listed with Partial title matches. So, I request you to either delete or wikify the page. And I wanted to know where to request the deletion of a disambiguation page. Is it in the Articles for deletion pages. WorLD8115 (TalK) 16:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Conditional would be a place to start, or tag the article with {{disambig-cleanup}}. Dab pages use the WP:AFD process, yes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ranger Peak

Hi -- I was wondering if you might be willing to delete this unnecessary disambiguation page and save us all the hassle of an AFD. Propaniac (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take another look at Ranger Peak (disambiguation) and see if it is now a valid page and move Ranger Peak back to Ranger Peak (Wyoming). Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 10:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a valid dab now, yes -- looks good. It doesn't need to be moved to the base name, though, unless the previous primary topic (the Wyoming mountain) is no longer the primary topic. I added a hatnote to Ranger Peak to assist readers who might be looking for one of the two new stubs. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't believe the primary topic is anymore relevant than any of the other articles and the DAB should be at Ranger Peak but I don't object to the current arrangement either. Cheers. → AA ^(talk) — 16:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dazed and Confused

[2] I full support the comments and endorse the move. It makes sense. PaulHammond2 (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I've completed it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PBX

Being too efficient can be detrimental - what if I was doing it in the wrong order - does that allow my reversion if indeed I do utilise the abbreviation? A simple enquiry might have been in order? Satu Suro 13:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, doing it in the wrong order can be detrimental and lead to inefficiencies. Simple inquiries into all of the many, many incorrect entries on acronym dabs would quickly become unwieldy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hehe that says it all :) Satu Suro 00:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

It seems our old friend is back and up to the usual tricks. I'm not feeling the strength at the moment to get into a battle regarding partial title matches, overlinking of common words, dab pages as search indicies, and so on, but thought I would at least let you know... Best, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson vs Jackson

Umm, okay... what makes these topics especially different that you had to revert my changes? I'm assuming you have WP policy/guidelines to back up your action? ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 01:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I contested the move. You can make a move request to see if there's consensus for the move. The other way to bring the topics into alignment (assuming they need to be -- Johnson is more common than Jackson) would be to move the Jackson surname page to the base name, of course. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're totally right. Let's change Anderson, Barnes, Jackson, Jenkins, Lancaster, Lincoln, Lowe, Smith, Springfield, and Walsh to match Johnson. That totally makes sense, why didn't I think of it? After all, Smith is more common than Johnson. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 17:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good, sarcasm! One more alternative: we could recognize that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Again: there might be consensus for your idea. WP:RM provides instructions on how to proceed when it's not uncontroversial. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catharsis / Katharsis

I have restored the redirect and disambiguation of katharsis. There is nothing archaic about the use of the k- spelling. In fact, there is a good argument that the article currently at Catharsis ought to occupy Katharsis. The definition given at catharsis is the primary contemprary sense and usage of katharsis. Regards, DionysosProteus (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have unrestored it. Merriam Webster identifies it as an archaic variant spelling. I could find no mention of "katharsis" on Talk:Catharsis. Since the move has not been discussed, please use WP:RM to determine if there's consensus for the change. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then kindly restore it once more. If you consult the OED, you will find that it is a perfectly current alternative. If you try any of the various google searches, you will have the primary sense confirmed along with plenty of examples of contemporary usage. All of the examples given by the disambiguation page refer to catharsis for their sense. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic is not determined by original reference of derivation, but of Wikipedia reader usage (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Please see WP:RM for proposing a non-uncontroversial move (such as this one). -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More disam help

Hiya, I see you're on wikibreak, but being a disam Luddite I'm still gonna write here. I don't mind when you read it. So... I merged Indie dance into Alternative dance, but then figured that Nintendocore can get its own article. Unfortunately, it redirects to Indie dance, so I don't know how to start a new page. I would appreciate the help.

Also, Matt Tong redirects to Bloc Party. Again, it could get its own article but I'm puzzled as how to start it cos it just redirects.

PRB88 (T) 01:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you reach a page through a redirect, there is a link to the redirect in small font underneath the article title. If you click on that link, you can then "edit this page" to change the redirect target or turn it into an article. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HELP

I have reverted many edits from an editor who is not following Wikipedia standards in citation and notability. Please see the history section of the Dayton, Ohio article and see for yourself and the user's talk page User talk:137.100.46.254 that I have made almost every attempt possable to so the editor what Wikipedia expects as far as Wikipedia standards. I would like to report the editor for warring, but I don't know how. Thank you for your help in this matter. Texas141 (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disreguard

Please disreguard the HELP section above. I think that the problem may have been resoved at this point. ThanksTexas141 (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of List of animals

I have nominated List of animals, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of animals (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Downbeat

Many, perhaps most, readers looking for the magazine will be unaware that its title uses two words - Down Beat. It seems to me that it is exceptionally unhelpful for those readers who put in a single word - Downbeat - to be led into the middle of an unrelated article - Beat (music) - where there is no information to point them towards the magazine article instead. There seems to me to be no down side whatsoever to directing Downbeat to the disamb page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then the disambiguation page should be moved to the base name. WP:RM can be used to determine if there is consensus for that. (Otherwise it's a malplaced disambiguation page, which is how it came up after the first edit to change the primary topic.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I think I understand... Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see one of the related problems -- no "redirect" note in the destination article section. I've added that there (but the move request could still go forward). -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's helpful - I've gone to WP:RM anyway. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delta

I went looking for those river deltas under 'Delta'. So, where on the Delta page would you suggest I put those entries? BTW, since this was a good-faith edit and not vandalism, an immediate reversion without a discussion first is not very friendly. Highspeed (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I had thought it was vandalism, I wouldn't have needed to put in an additional edit summary. If you feel there's a need for a list of river deltas, you could create List of river deltas. Or if you think those articles are ambiguous with "delta", you could initiate the discussion on Talk:Delta (since you made a bold edit, it was reverted, and discussion comes next per WP:BRD). I think readers looking for a specific delta will specify the delta they're looking for -- similarly, Ocean (disambiguation) doesn't list specific oceans. No need to take offense at the reversion of a bold edit. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

According to Magioladitis, who is an admin:

You are not allowed to solely change otheruses4 with about and this is because this is a very minor edit. Page layout is serious stuff
— Magioladitis (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

How did I violate anything? I am entitled to an explanation.174.3.123.220 (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation: You were warned to stop replacing otheruses4 with about, because your approach had become disruptive. You continued to do so anyway. You were blocked. Welcome back. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]