User talk:JocularJellyfish/Archives/2017/August

This is an archive of User talk:JocularJellyfish. Please do not change it in any way. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 01:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Government officials articles[edit]

JocularJellyfish, if you're going update articles to say that person has been confirmed, can you please update the rest of the paragraph? I have found several articles where you have added that they've been confirmed but you don't update the rest such as "John Doe is President Trump's nominee for...". It only takes a couple of more seconds to update it. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 05:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Corkythehornetfan:, I apologize. I was going to go back to that once all 65 of the nominees who were confirmed yesterday were updated. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 14:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'm just tying to save less work for you! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 15:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing initials[edit]

Hi, Can you explain to me why I keep seeing redirected articles all because a middle initial or name is removed from the title? What's wrong with how it is? In your summary you say it's unnecessary, but it IS part of their name, so what is the harm? Snickers2686 (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Snickers2686:, I'm removing the middle initials not as a slight to you, but because my philosophy is that the simplest name with no disambiguations is the best article title to have. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 21:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JocularJellyfish: Do you plan on doing that to all the other past judge articles for previous Presidents? A lot of them have middle initials too. How do you plan to differentiate between generations, i.e. Sr, Jr, III, etc, (ex: William Lindsay Osteen Sr. and William Lindsay Osteen Jr., both who served on the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Just curious. Snickers2686 (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Snickers2686:, In a case like that, I would keep the suffix and probably either abbreviate the middle name or eliminate it entirely from the title of the article. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 12:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Snickers2686:, basically my view is "why name an article Barack Hussein Obama II, Barack Hussein Obama, Barack H. Obama II, or Barack H. Obama when it can be named Barack Obama?" – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 18:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @JocularJellyfish:, I understand that but I guess the way I see it is, why differentiate from what the press release says in terms of new judicial nominees? If that's the way they're listed/presented (i.e. John J. Smith) then why change it to John Smith? I just see it as unnecessary work when the article already exists under a different name/title. In the case like Josephine Staton Tucker who was nominated in 2010 would arguably become Josephine Tucker, but if she divorces, separates or remarries then she becomes (and is) Josephine Staton...so how many different redirects or articles do you make for just one person? Snickers2686 (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Snickers2686:, I don't believe cases like that are that common. Even if people divorce/(re)marry, it's not that hard to change one article. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 00:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed moves[edit]

Since some of the recent page moves you have undertaken have been controversial, and since they do not appear to have been undertaken pursuant to WP:BEFORE or WP:COMMONNAME, I request that not make further page moves of this nature without discussion. Please make any further move requests through Wikipedia:Requested moves. bd2412 T 15:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412:, could I have a list of controversial moves so I know what I did wrong? – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 17:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:RM#CM counts as controversial any move where "Someone could reasonably disagree with the move". It is impossible to tell whether someone could reasonably disagree with a move if no checking is done to see whether the move takes the page away from the subject's common name. For example, it is clear from the references to Amy Coney Barrett that "Coney" is part of her common name, and removing it is improper. The same with Elizabeth Ann Copeland and Holly Lou Teeter, the latter of whom appears to be an incidence of two names effectively being used as a compounded name. We don't pull these article titles out of thin air; they are typically generated by following usage in reliable sources. If you continue making bad moves like these, then presumably all your moves are bad and should be reversed. bd2412 T 17:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @BD2412:, in that case I will refrain from making such moves in the future. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 17:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just don't make them without checking first to see whether the title already in use is the common name. bd2412 T 17:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gorsuch[edit]

Hi, J.J. - I normally only write about the financial system, but I had two friends who were asking about how to find the frozen trucker case reference - so I threw in that comment on Gorsuch's page - it would eventually be picked up by the search engines and lead people to the case rather than some op-eds. I defer to you on whether or not it is unneeded, but it seemed that way to me. Could you give it a second thought? And then, afterwards, forget it - cheers! LondonYoung (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LondonYoung:, I removed it because the case's title (TransAm Trucking v. Administrative Review Board) features "trucking" itself. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 00:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Command[edit]

Please do not make edits reflecting it is a UCC, as it is not until the DOD declares its full independence. Until then it is a subordinate UCC, with no status changes. Garuda28 (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Garuda28:, proof? – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 12:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

if you look at the text of the press release https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/08/18/statement-donald-j-trump-elevation-cyber-command it announces that it's directed to make the change, but with reguard to the actual change, DOD has not made an official statement yet that it has been fully implemented, but rather that it is just initiated https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1283326/dod-initiates-process-to-elevate-us-cyber-command-to-unified-combatant-command/, and once it is fully initiated and the change of command occurs with STRATCOM, then it will be a full UCC.

@Garuda28:, Thanks. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 18:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]