User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 14

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.

View of Serge

Who are you to say what is consensus or not on the matter of Francis, Dauphin of France? Leave Serge alone. If he has avoided the letter of 3RR, then there is technically no wrongdoing. Leave him alone, that's an order. Or we can take this up with the chain of command. 68.236.154.4 (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Wikipedia editor, which allows to to recognize when a group of Wikipedia editors have reached consensus, or when a single Wikipedia editor is attempting to edit a page against the consensus of a group of others. On the next point, let's be clear: do not give me (or any other Wikipedian) orders. If you have a bee in your bonnet over my interpretation of 3RR (a policy which makes it explicit that hiding behind the letter will not work), please do take "this" up the "chain of command". (Not "up with the chain of command", BTW.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay JHunterJ, let's do it your way. I'll locate an administrator and lodge a complaint over you. It is NOT your place to say what consensus is and is not, or interpreting the 3RR policy. Let's take this case up for judgment. 68.236.154.4 (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick correction: needing to lodge a complaint is "your way", not mine -- I am content in working with consensus on the page in question, and abiding by the guidelines and policies. If you need assistance in locating another administrator, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ACiD

Would you have styled this redirect as a third primary meaning to Acid (disambiguation) or is it better off as an entry? Note that in this thread I have referenced a number of dabs with more than one primary topic. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd make both ACiD and ACID entries on the dab page. There was an earlier discussion about the problems with multiple primary topics on a dab page, and since then I've switched from including capitalization variations as primaries. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that Abtract was correct in making this change? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you didn't see this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been sticking with no more than one primary topic per dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wal-Mart (disambiguation)

Can you please undelete Wal-Mart (disambiguation), a page I recently created. For some reason I cannot understand, it was speedy deleted. I would have objected to this deletion, but was not even around when this happened. I see nothing wrong with this page. Tatterfly (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted based on an earlier AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation) (2nd nomination). -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This happened a long time ago, and I was not aware of it then, nor do I agree with the rationale given for deletion. I am requesting that it be undeleted, and if someone else feels it should be deleted, they bring it up on AFD. Tatterfly (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should point that out to the deleting admin or bring it up on Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion house

I'm writing to strongly object to the reversion of the decision to redirect "fashion house" to haute couture. In itself, the term "fashion house" is not exclusively haute couture - you can have "ready to wear fashion houses", such as Chloé. I was going to write an article clarifying the use of the term "fashion house" and explaining how it is distinct from haute couture, and the different things it can mean. Please can you see the discussion about this on the Haute Couture chat page and also make a note of where I've said on my talk page that I was going to write a Wiki for the term "fashion house". It's extremely misleading to associate fashion houses solely with haute couture, as virtually any clothing label with name-brand recognition or commercial success can be described as a fashion house. It is a semantics thing, but a rather major semantics thing to anyone involved in fashion. Thanks so much for considering this, and if there is somewhere else I need to go to argue for the unlinking of fashion house to haute couture, please let me know. Mabalu (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to this here.— TAnthony^Talk 02:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melange

Hey there, just looking for another "expert" opinion ... Melange was moved to Melange (fictional drug) but the disambiguation seems unnecessary, as the alternate articles noted at Melange (disambiguation) are stubs and seemingly less-notable. And Melange remains a redirect to Melange (fictional drug). Hmmm. — TAnthony^Talk 14:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The disambig has been moved to Melange and many links updated by bot to Melange (fictional drug), so no need to bother looking into this unless you really think it's a problem (I'm cool with it). Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk

Lee Archer (pilot)

Hello there. I've been looking for someone who can help me with a conflict of sources about the number of kills Archer achieved during World War II. I've done everything I can think of to find a source other than the TV series Dogfights to support the claim that he indeed has five kills, but to no avail. If you could assist me, either in finding a source, helping me enter said data, or directing me to someone you believe is better equipped to handle this perticular problem, I'd very much appreciate it. Best regards, Magus732 (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised something... I should link to the page so you know what I'm talking about... sorry about that... here it is: Talk:Lee Archer (pilot) Best regards, again, Magus732 (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posted citations there. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much... Magus732 (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Clay (disambiguation)

I noticed your cleanup on Red Clay (disambiguation). I had been engaged in an extended debate on the Talk page, in case you hadn't noticed, and found myself rather frustrated in pursuit of any sensible outcome for that page. Your edit will hopefully prove an effective solution , yet I find myself wondering what to do in the future if such an option is not availabe. Do you have any suggestions, or critiques, on approach in such a case? ENeville (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After going down several avenues, my personal approach on non-useful dab pages is to !vote "Delete" on them when they are AfDed and otherwise to ignore them. There seem to be a lot of editors suddenly interested in disambiguation pages but not interested in the existing guidelines. I'm afraid I don't have a good idea for a solution. -- JHunterJ (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: February 2009

First, I want to apologize for using the "UNDO" button on your edit. My intent was to revert with an explanation -- not to automatically undo it, & I confused that with the rollback function. I rarely use either, & probably will use them even less after this.

Now to the point of your message. My belief is that redlinks are not, in themselves or on disambiguation pages, a bad thing: they encourage the creation of new pages, & thus help improve Wikipedia. However, in your post you did not respond or anticipate this. You wrote nothing about how redlinks harm Wikipedia, nor how their removal improves them. What you wrote was simply a recital of various statements in various policy statements -- which is not the same thing. You've been an editor at Wikipedia long enough to know that the words, & thus the intent, of any given policy can radically change with a few edits, so pointing to them without any explanation why you think the policy helps Wikipedia is not helpful. If policy contradicts writing a useful reference work, then the policy is wrong. Please consider my point here. At best, a disagreement over redlinks -- like this one -- becomes an edit war over content; at worst, it is an example of mechanistic application of policy that seems to affect Wikipedia more & more in recent months. -- llywrch (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continued on User talk:Llywrch#February 2009

Stan Lee (disambiguation)

This was a bit of a hard one. I really had no idea how to format this. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it needs to be on the dab page; it's covered by the primary topic article. For that matter, I don't think it needs to be on the Stan Lee article either. Is it encyclopedic who he's not? If the person he's not is notable, probably the cleanest fix would be to create the author stub, to avoid linking to Stan Lee twice on the dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I don't get what you're saying. Let's put it this way: what would you do in situations like these? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either

Create a stub article at the red link for the author who isn't Stan Lee

Or

Remove the entry from the dab and probably remove the note from Stan Lee talking about who he isn't. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queens College

Thanks for that redirect template, I didn't know one with that wording was available. Hewinsj (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure; glad to help. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball (disambiguation)

Per a conversation I had with another editor on User talk:Collectonian#Dragon Ball (film), can you undelete this dab & replace the old information with the new one from the appointed discussion? Hope this isn't too much work. Please let me know if you do not understand my request. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to re-create a page at Dragon Ball (disambiguation) with the new text from the appointed discussion without having the old redirect undeleted first. If you're not able to, let me know what is preventing it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that works too. I was just under the mindset that undeleting a page is the best way of going at it. But whatever. I'll recreate it, though I'd like for you to tell me if redirects should be utilised. Also, any ideas for the descriptions? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't have anything? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just remembered that Dragonball (disambiguation) and DragonBall (disambiguation) were still out there. I prefer "Dragon Ball (disambiguation)" as the title though because "Dragon Ball" is the spelling found the most. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to await a response from me over the content (the descriptions) as opposed to the form. I don't know Dragon Ball. Use the Talk pages of the pages you have ideas for. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ADL

If you have occasion to edit there again, i think you did a good job re the PoV problem, and in any case i think i don't want to get involved. But PoV aside and as a matter of distinguishing it from, e.g. the other advocacy group, if not the commercial firm, i commend for your consideration the view that some users seeking ADL will know at least of the org's connections to matters Jewish, but may find "Anti-Defamation" unhelpfully cryptic. There was a time when it was always called the "B'nai Brith Anti-Defamation League", so i assume it is accurate to describe it as "Jewish-initiated organization". Or -- suggested by AFSC, which (at least not too long ago) described itself as "Quaker led" tho my impression was that "Quaker affiliated" (what our article says) was too strong for them, at least then) -- perhaps even "Jewish-led organization" (tho in the case of describing ADL that way, i'm guessing and would definitely seek reliable verification first).
--Jerzy•t 04:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of lists

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#lists of lists. I see a problem with removing the {{disambig}} template from many of these lists. DHowell (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

Someone moved it to Terminology (discipline). I was not able to revert so can you rectify this? Oh, and Term will need a "disambig style cleanup". Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier move reverted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible move

Can you take a look at Talk:The New Adventures of Superman (TV series)#Suggestion: eliminate (TV series) from article title? Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 23:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answered there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow (disambiguation)

Hi, J--long time... I just cleaned up Yellow (disambiguation) and scraped away a lot of bad entries. I'd appreciate it if you'd take a quick look--at the current version and the older one--and make any changes you see fit. I was on the fence about including Yellow Pages, and didn't, for example. Thanks! --ShelfSkewed Talk 16:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your changes look good. If another editor objects to the removal of Yellow Pages, I'd put it in See also, but I agree that it's not needed here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Always glad to have your opinion. Thanks again.--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Schulze

Hi, Paul Schulze was recently and inexplicably moved to Paul Schulze (actor), to make way for a disambig page; since the only other "article" didn't even exist, I moved the unnecessary disambig to Paul Schulze (disambiguation) hoping I could then restore the other article, but of course now moving Paul Schulze (actor) to Paul Schulze is an assisted move. Can you clean up the mess? Thanks! — TAnthony^Talk 04:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thanks a lot!— TAnthony^Talk 15:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Term

Something's still not right with me here. Think you can perform one of those cleanups? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man. Cheers! Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man (disambiguation)

Hey J, do you think you can rework that ugly pipe link in the publishing section? I was the one who set it up like that because I can't come up with something more suitable. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The battleship section link? Made a change. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dab of black widow

Hi. I thought long and hard about the disambiguation, why have [you] done this and this? cygnis insignis 13:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the non-spider dab page entries are for Initial Caps "Black Widow", and not for Common caps "Black widow". "Black widow" would appear to be used for spiders of the genus as a primary topic, and so that article should be the target of the redirect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind considering it for a just a little while longer? You have left at least ~~two~~ ~~three~~ five errors, anticipated that a reader would refine a search using caps, undid the 'primary topic' type arrangement of the dab, and assumed that the common name refers to all members of the genus. I believe that my arrangement was correct, and it took me sometime to do it. cygnis insignis 14:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reader looking for one of the "Black Widows" (caps) needn't refine the search -- they can use the hatnote on Black widow's target to get to the dab page. Being the target of redirect does not imply identity. In this case, "Black widow" does not imply that all the elements of the genus are referred to by the redirect, just that the article contains the elements of the redirect. That is, black widows are a subset of the genus, but not necessarily that the set of the genus is identical to the set of "black widows". If readers who enter or click on "black widow" are primarily looking for the spider type, then the genus appears to be the primary topic. But I will revert and bring it up on the talk page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

relocating to Talk:Black widow#Primary topic

A reader can use the dab I fixed! You fixed something that wasn't broken, and, unsurprisingly, don't seem to be able to follow your own arrangement. The 'relocation' above is on a redirect's talk, you created double redirects, and referred users to another redirect. It is merely a common name that anyone may call the spiders I included at the dab, and other many things that may derive from what you claim is the 'primary topic', that is the full set of things that it 'may refer to:'. Until you get it straight, I'm requesting that you undo all your actions; this would include undeleting the talk page, just to convince me that you haven't got that muddled too. I'm generally reluctant to point out to other editors (inc. sysops) that they goofed up, I hope you will understand that I don't want to waste any more time by expanding on this fact. Revert all your actions, then try and convince me, and the community, that you have a better way. Thanks, cygnis insignis 16:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to convince you. I brought it up on the redirect's talk because that's where it should be discussed. See you there. There seems to be a language barrier problem between us as well, because I'm not sure what else you're upset about. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]