User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 10
|
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. |
I'm assuming you didn't see the last reply, did you? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Abtract and I have merged the data to Puer. Now I'm wondering if Puer should be moved to Puer (disambiguation) and made into a primary topic. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
That was a horrible move. Please change it back. It's an atrocious distortion. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- You requested the move. What's wrong with it? The spelling was fixed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Given that you are involved in the dispute on the above page, this edit is clearly non controversial and you should not be editing a protected page like that. Please revert yourself ASAP and start a talk page discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, if you say so. Since the controverting parties were in agreement with the edit already discussed on the Talk page, it seemed like the right thing to do. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my requested moves
Can you fix Talk:Tomorrow Never Dies (film) and Talk:The World Is Not Enough (film) too? Ultra! 15:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Film Moves
You undid my moves because the films are the primary topics. What about GoldenEye and Licence to Kill. Last time I checked, those weren't the first things to go by those names. Licence to Kill started as a concept from the Fleming novels and GoldenEye started as an operation planned by Fleming During WWII and later the name for his estate. So, under your policy, Licence to kill (concept) should be at Licence to Kill and the films should be at Licence to kill (film). Same for GoldenEye. Emperor001 (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Primary topic" does not mean "the thing that came first". Feel free to make your suggestion at Talk:Licence to Kill and/or Talk:Licence to kill (concept) if you'd like to form consensus for your proposed primary topic moves. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Talk:The Jewish Quesion, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.
If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ha! (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
As someone who has had recent dealings with Abtract, and who is mentioned in it, I thought it would be proper to notify you that an RfC/User has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abtract. Collectonian (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering if removing all of those entries was a good idea. Were you aware of this discussion? Acronyms could apply for this dab too. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it was a good idea to "remove entries whose article did not indicate known as RK". I don't know what you mean by "Acronyms could apply". -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Let me explain: the page Bam's Unholy Union is listed at Buu, but the page in question makes no reference to "Buu" or any variants. Does that signify removal or should we keep the term because of the acronym in Bam's Unholy Union? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- If it's commonly referred to as BUU, I'd expect that to be mentioned on Bam's Unholy Union. If it's not, it wouldn't need to be on the dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed then. How should we go about removing it? User:Deiz will surely have a fit. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Suggest to him, on Talk:Bam's Unholy Union or User talk:Deiz, that the use of BUU for Bam's Unholy Union should be noted on Bam's Unholy Union, or bring up its removal on Talk:Buu. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Think we should start a discussion on WT:MOSDAB first. A new rule in the guideline will better our case, and might save some trouble in the future. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. I believe it's been discussed at WT:MOSDAB though, and the quidelines are written with that consensus in mind. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Great. Where is the link to the discussion? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, in Toriyama, wouldn't the inclusion of "Toriyama Sekien" imply that it is also a given name page? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Great. Where is the link to the discussion? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. I believe it's been discussed at WT:MOSDAB though, and the quidelines are written with that consensus in mind. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Think we should start a discussion on WT:MOSDAB first. A new rule in the guideline will better our case, and might save some trouble in the future. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Suggest to him, on Talk:Bam's Unholy Union or User talk:Deiz, that the use of BUU for Bam's Unholy Union should be noted on Bam's Unholy Union, or bring up its removal on Talk:Buu. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed then. How should we go about removing it? User:Deiz will surely have a fit. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- If it's commonly referred to as BUU, I'd expect that to be mentioned on Bam's Unholy Union. If it's not, it wouldn't need to be on the dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Let me explain: the page Bam's Unholy Union is listed at Buu, but the page in question makes no reference to "Buu" or any variants. Does that signify removal or should we keep the term because of the acronym in Bam's Unholy Union? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hawaii dab pages
Hi. When you have a chance, could you restore all the Hawaii tags you removed? We use them to maintain Hawaii-related pages, including dabs, on our watchlist. They primarily help us watch vandalism, but we are trying to get our bot up and running again for maintenance tasks so we will need to have all of our pages tagged. Thanks in advance. Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- I removed the Hawaii dab tags from the talk pages of dabs (Owyhee and Mana (disambiguation)) that didn't disambiguate any Hawaii-related terms. You want those back for some reason? -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I do want the tags back. You see, Owyhee used to dab to "an old spelling of Hawaii based on a report from Capt. James Cook stating that that was the native name of the island", although that was removed. Perhaps the article was deleted, I don't know, but it is relevant as an antiquated, alternative spelling of Hawaii. Obviously, it needs to be added back in. And, the first entry on the Mana dab begins with a link to Mana an important word in the Hawaiian culture. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- The Mana article itself isn't part of the Hawaii project, so I think that would be a better next step for tagging if you think that Mana (disambiguation) should be. But you are welcome to re-tag either page if you feel it's still a valid part of the project. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is significant overlap between the Polynesia and Hawaiian projects, and to the best of my knowledge, the Polynesia project isn't all that active. Mana should be tagged by the Hawaiian project as should the dab. Ideally, if the dab project is willing to track all dab pages and watchlist them on a daily basis for vandalism, I would recommend removing all the project tags. But I don't see the dab project doing that due to the sheer size. Exactly how many dab pages are there? More than 10,000? That's why it is better to decentralize and have the projects take care of their own dab pages (or related dab pages), and watch them for vandalism and new additions. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree -- as I said, I only removed the tag from the talk pages of dabs that didn't mention (or no longer mentioned) any Hawaiian topics. Other Hawaiian dabs that I cleaned up I left the tag on. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, thanks for explaining. BTW, how does the dab project watch pages for vandalism and new additions? Do you folks use a watchlist? If nobody is actively watching these pages, would it make sense to start reaching out to the WikiProjects and help educate them about how to use dab pages, encouraging them to watch for vandalism and new additions? That would certainly take the load off you folks, would it not? Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Each of us (I assume) watches some for vandalism, but the project works more on styling dabs pages than protecting them from vandalism. {{disambig-cleanup}} will put a page on one of our lists, and we also edit other articles that link to dab pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, thanks for explaining. BTW, how does the dab project watch pages for vandalism and new additions? Do you folks use a watchlist? If nobody is actively watching these pages, would it make sense to start reaching out to the WikiProjects and help educate them about how to use dab pages, encouraging them to watch for vandalism and new additions? That would certainly take the load off you folks, would it not? Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree -- as I said, I only removed the tag from the talk pages of dabs that didn't mention (or no longer mentioned) any Hawaiian topics. Other Hawaiian dabs that I cleaned up I left the tag on. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is significant overlap between the Polynesia and Hawaiian projects, and to the best of my knowledge, the Polynesia project isn't all that active. Mana should be tagged by the Hawaiian project as should the dab. Ideally, if the dab project is willing to track all dab pages and watchlist them on a daily basis for vandalism, I would recommend removing all the project tags. But I don't see the dab project doing that due to the sheer size. Exactly how many dab pages are there? More than 10,000? That's why it is better to decentralize and have the projects take care of their own dab pages (or related dab pages), and watch them for vandalism and new additions. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- The Mana article itself isn't part of the Hawaii project, so I think that would be a better next step for tagging if you think that Mana (disambiguation) should be. But you are welcome to re-tag either page if you feel it's still a valid part of the project. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I do want the tags back. You see, Owyhee used to dab to "an old spelling of Hawaii based on a report from Capt. James Cook stating that that was the native name of the island", although that was removed. Perhaps the article was deleted, I don't know, but it is relevant as an antiquated, alternative spelling of Hawaii. Obviously, it needs to be added back in. And, the first entry on the Mana dab begins with a link to Mana an important word in the Hawaiian culture. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Caps questions
Hello -- I see you changed a couple of entries relating to "PALATINE, the Subject Centre for Dance, Drama and Music of the UK Higher Education Academy". I don't know (or even care) why that organisation chooses to refer to itself by capitalising the word, but (and I ask for information here) is there a policy that precludes us from respecting that choice? Richard Pinch (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) both indicate that normal capitalisation rules should be followed even if the organisation chooses ALLCAPS. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Noted, thanks. But ... well, it isn't a trademark, afaik, tho' it seems that it is an acronym, namely "Performing Arts Learning and Teaching Innovation Network". So I suggest that it falls under the last rubric of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#All caps. Richard Pinch (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
How does it look? Also, did you read my inquiry back here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I moved the condiment around. You should have started a new section for Toriyama. No, all of those Toriyamas do not have Toriyama as a given name. In the case of the print artist, he has his family name listed first and his given name listed second, in traditional Japanese fashion. I don't have a link to the earlier discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a strange case. Street Fighter redirects to Street Fighter (series) (logic in this?) and there is no primary topic on the dab, which should be the series franchise. What do you think? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- It gets worse. Now Street Fighter (series) redirects to Street Fighter which redirects to Street fighting which has absolutely nothing to do with Capcom's video game series. The entire page has been completely lost! Something here needs fixing.
- Personally, Street Fighter should still redirect to Street fighting, but a dab at the top should say "Street Fighter redirects here; for Capcom's fighting game franchise, see Street Fighter (series)." --Shadow Hog (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- A mess indeed. I think the franchise page would be the most popular choice. Street Fighter should be the base name, therefore, the primary topic. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not bad eh J? Though I'm thinking about what should become of Street fighter. Should it target something else (streetfighter maybe) or stay where it is? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- It can stay where it is or target Street Fighter as an {{R from capitalisation}} or target streetfighting or Streetfighter. I don't know which is the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks much. --Shadow Hog (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not bad eh J? Though I'm thinking about what should become of Street fighter. Should it target something else (streetfighter maybe) or stay where it is? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- A mess indeed. I think the franchise page would be the most popular choice. Street Fighter should be the base name, therefore, the primary topic. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I know there is some discussion at WT:MOSDAB regarding primary topics so I'm unsure if performing this edit would be an ok move. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Abtract went ahead and did some changes, as did I. Think these were more legitimate? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Bongo drum seems a perfectly fine primary topic for Bongos. Other cleanups applied. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- J, you believe "Bongos" would be a primary topic at the Bongo dab correct? Appears Bkonrad disagrees with my edits. Do you also think "universe" would be the wrong qualifier there? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Bongos would definitely be a primary topic a a hypothetical Bongos (disambiguation) page. Bongo is at the base name, so doesn't have a primary topic. I added the band to the hatnote on Bongo drum though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why exactly does this differ from the primary topics listed at Freak (disambiguation)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- "(disambiguation)" in Freak (disambiguation) indicates there's a primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I get it. Thanks for clearing that up J. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- "(disambiguation)" in Freak (disambiguation) indicates there's a primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why exactly does this differ from the primary topics listed at Freak (disambiguation)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Bongos would definitely be a primary topic a a hypothetical Bongos (disambiguation) page. Bongo is at the base name, so doesn't have a primary topic. I added the band to the hatnote on Bongo drum though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- J, you believe "Bongos" would be a primary topic at the Bongo dab correct? Appears Bkonrad disagrees with my edits. Do you also think "universe" would be the wrong qualifier there? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Bongo drum seems a perfectly fine primary topic for Bongos. Other cleanups applied. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if you noticed J, but there is another RfC concerning User:Abtract's incivil behaviour towards other editors, me in general. Care to make a comment? You seemed to have dealt with him longer than I have. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Further explanation
For my edits on Gypsy and Santos? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- The list is too long for group headings; section headings work better. Not every TV series character has to be in a "universe". -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Xena (software)
Hi J, why did you revert my entry about the Xena software ? Any official policy you could link to ? Thanks Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- There's no Wikipedia article to disambiguate. WP:D: "disambiguation pages — non-article pages that contain no content and only refer users to other Wikipedia pages." WP:MOSDAB#Individual entries: "Never include external links, either as entries or in descriptions. Disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia articles, not the World-Wide Web." Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking we can make an exception and have SARU as the primary topic, or at least favoured over its target, South African Rugby Union. I'm sure I've seen a precedent some time ago, can't remember exactly though. What are your feelings? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- And I discovered a similar problem at Wah wah. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely SARU should be used as the blue link in that entry, rather than a direct link to its target. I'd suggest raising the question of making it a primary topic at Talk:Saru first to get consensus to ignore the rules; if it is the (only) primary topic, the page might be served by moving it to SARU (disambiguation), but I think it'd be fine where it is and leave the entry in the list. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks J, I understand this one. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely SARU should be used as the blue link in that entry, rather than a direct link to its target. I'd suggest raising the question of making it a primary topic at Talk:Saru first to get consensus to ignore the rules; if it is the (only) primary topic, the page might be served by moving it to SARU (disambiguation), but I think it'd be fine where it is and leave the entry in the list. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Primary topics
I'm now thinking the second primary topic on Devilman (disambiguation) should just serve as an entry, like what you did to the Street Fighter dab here. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- And DMZ (disambiguation)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've also encountered a second "possible" primary topic on Genie (disambiguation). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I believe it was you who said awhile back that Boô shouldn't be a primary topic for Boo (disambiguation), but what about the page Tupac Amaru (disambiguation)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've also encountered a second "possible" primary topic on Genie (disambiguation). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Help needed
If you have the time, I would appeciate you looking at this. Abtract (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This doesn't look right. Can you check it out? I doubt that we need a dab here, or even the wikification. It's all one series of albums. I hope you're having a relaxing wikibreak. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
intiials
Hi JHJ, just wondering if you can point me to the stipulation that an multi-word article topic must have its acronym referenced on the the article page to be listed on disambiguation pages related to its initials? Thanks, Deiz talk 03:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Continued on User talk:Deiz#Re: Spelling
I really don't agree with your edit here. Repeating the noun is redundant (you once told me something like that) and the mention of "album" is necessary to avoid confusion with anything else that would be italicized. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I may have said an entry like "Dab (album), an album" is superfluous and counter to the guidelines. "Dab (album), an album by The Ambiguous Ones" is not. OTOH, songs don't come from other italicized works except for albums. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- That explains some things, guess this'll take getting used to (not to mention the dozens of dabs I have to go back and re-fix). So, do you recall this thread by any chance? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you really prefer "a song by X from the album Y", I won't undo that change again. But I'd also like to ask that if you come across "X (album), an album by Y" you don't remove it. I'll go revisit the section above. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- J, I like to be consistent with all dab pages. Which layout do you happen to come across often? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the more common format in either of those two cases was in the pages I've cleaned up. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well I'll just follow your advice, and eventually go back to re-fix the dabs I've done similar changes to, that is, when opportune. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the more common format in either of those two cases was in the pages I've cleaned up. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- J, I like to be consistent with all dab pages. Which layout do you happen to come across often? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you really prefer "a song by X from the album Y", I won't undo that change again. But I'd also like to ask that if you come across "X (album), an album by Y" you don't remove it. I'll go revisit the section above. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- That explains some things, guess this'll take getting used to (not to mention the dozens of dabs I have to go back and re-fix). So, do you recall this thread by any chance? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I admit, coming up with a title for that list is awkward. Why don't you have a look at Category:Mathematics-related lists and see what's been done already - it might provide a spark :-) CultureDrone (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Eek ! - trying to advise an administrator !! :-) CultureDrone (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)