User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 16

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.

Your opinion

Hi JHunterJ - I've was looking to clean up the Vodcast (disambiguation) page and came to realize that two of the three entries are essentially just a cut and paste of the VODcast (SeaChange) article. The third addition to the dab page is sort of a definition, but could be useful for those looking for a general article on the term (although they would need to go to Video podcast to do so). Do you think that the (disambig) page could just redirect to the (SeaChange) page, with a hatnote on Seachange linking to Video podcast? Or do you think the current dab page could be useful with some clean-up on the piping, bolding etc? ponyo (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The disambiguation page should not redirect to an article, even though the dab doesn't serve much navigational purpose. I added a hatnote to VODcast target to get to the SeaChange article. I also cleaned up the dab page, although it is now an orphan. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It looks much better now and seems to still be useful as a DAB. Cheers! ponyo (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Dave Arneson

It took a while, but the Dave Arneson article is finally up for review. If there's anything you can do or add to give it that last nudge, I think we'll have a "Good Article" in no time. :) BOZ (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

WTF

Hey, stop it! Let me fix the f___ing mess. doncram (talk)

Left a note on your talk page while you were leaving this one. But moving primary topics away from the base name is not a fix. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the primary topic is any one place out of 5 that have that exact name. Let me do my work, and just back off. What, did u create that article or something and are being possessive, or what is your interest here.

It's just rude to revert / move / undo stuff right while i am working on it. If u have a problem, raise it by a note to a person's talk page. doncram (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There aren't any other articles to make the current one non-primary. It's not rude to try and avoid a mess before it's made. And I raised a note on your talk page. My interest is the disambiguation project; I happened to catch the bad move in the "Recent changes". -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a bad move. I am setting up disambiguation pages for NRHP. Where should we get other input. I could open a discussion at WikiProject disambiguation. You are certainly being a jerk though. doncram (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:RM for requesting a move. Take a look at WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine, i am sorry about being irritated in my tone. As it happened, your unexpected move of one of the pages caused me to mistakenly create the intended disambig page at the wrong location. I am appropriately miffed that you are disrupting what i am doing and you are causing a bunch of work now. Your moves will be reversed eventually. You have disagreed with me before about disambiguation stuff and there has been plenty of discussion setting up guidelines in long talks at wikiproject disambiguation. I think you may just be forgetting some stuff. Or, you are just being difficult for whatever reason. You could have opened a discussion at my talk page and caused a lot less work. You are disrupting and abusing your administrator status, in my view. doncram (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I did open a discussion at your talk page, and I did it with civility and without any personal attacks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You are being deliberately misleading, as if to cover your tracks now, trying to make it appear, after the fact, that your disruptive edits and interactions with me today were reasonable. The fact is you have previous history with me and, with the context of that history, from the beginning here your edits were unreasonable. And, now in this assertion, you are being deliberately misleading. You eventually posted at my talk page, but only after considerable and disruptive interaction. What i stated (and i believe you understood) was that if you have a problem with how I am doing some disambiguation work, you should have raised a question at my Talk page and discussed what was your issue, rather than disruptively reverting my edits. I am an experienced wikipedia editor and you know that i have long experience and familiarity with disambiguation rules and policy. You did not open a discussion at my talk page until well after the fact of your self-acknowledged move warring. I'll count up the edits and make a timeline later, perhaps, if necessary. As an administrator, you should not be engaging in move warring. Neither should I, and I am setting this aside for a while to raise in appropriate forums later. But throughout our little exchange today you have been one step ahead, at least, in making contended edits.

About civility, what is civil or not is a matter of some judgment. Your edits definitely gave me a big jolt, and I believe that your intent and the substance of your edits were intentionally incivil, by general English language usage of the term. I appreciate, sure, that the language you have used has not been uncivil. But your provoking a reaction out of me is not something to crow about as if you are somehow superior in your behavior here. The fact that we are having a disagreement here is solely due to your behavior, which will in fact eventually get over-ruled in terms of your moves being reverted, and I think you know that. I honestly don't know what is your motivation in disrupting my work today. My current hypothesis is that you harbor a personal grudge against me from past, entirely civil discussions about disambiguation policy and rules, and that you saw an opportunity to throw a wrench into the works without it being clearly in violation of wikipedia policies for you to do so. doncram (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not been misleading about anything. I saw your bold move on the Recent changes, which I considered wrong and reverted. I pointed you to WP:RM. I fixed your edit clobber of the revert-moved page, which you saved either without getting an edit conflict warning or without heeding it, and I posted to your talk page about where that dab page should go (until a change in the current primary topic was needed). Yes, I made edits before that post, just as you made your moves and edits without discussion. The main difference is that you assumed bad faith, while I just assumed less familiarity with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the disambiguation project -- which I know that you have awareness of, but not familiarity, based on earlier discussions. Our previous history was, I thought, resolved, and resulted in your formatting of NRHP dabs more in line with the dab guidelines. Nothing about them has changed WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I do not believe I have anything to lose by your counts and timelines. I did not seek a reaction from you nor have I crowed about it anywhere. The disagreement is over each other's edits and moves -- you made a bold move, I reverted, then (in theory) discussion should be engaged (see WP:BRD). The moves may eventually get made, if there is consensus for changing the primary topic (now that you have subsequently created a stub article). Your current hypothesis is incorrect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarksville HD

Saw your comments on Doncram's talk page and was curious — why do you consider the Austin district more significant than the other two districts by that name? Nyttend (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It was the only one with a Wikipedia article at the time I wrote that. There is no question of "which one of one article is the primary one". -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

AWB edits on Gregorian mission

Just a heads up that you can't change b. to born and d. to died in the title of articles that are used in references. Your recent changes here did that with with two articles from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which uses those abbreviations in the title of its articles. Just a heads up to be more careful when checking your edits. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I did not recognize that the edits were within a ref tag; I'll be alert for that. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

I am really sorry for my bad spelling. When I did spelling tests in school, the word succeeded never really appeared. Thank you for sorting out my bad spelling.--Daaviiid 15:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Check my edit history around the same time -- there are plenty of other editors with the same typos. That's why tools like AWB exist. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Need an opinion

How would you go about adding the redirect Fad to FAD (disambiguation)? Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

FAD stands for flavin adenine dinucleotide.

FAD may also refer to:

• Fad, something that is very popular for only a short period of time
• FAD assault rifle, a bullpup rifle of Peruvian origin

...

(I don't think "in biochemistry" adds any navigational aid in the intro line.) --JHunterJ (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Another opinion

JHunterJ, if you work at Wikipedia, please call my office to discuss your recent edits and monitoring of the Lingerie Football League page. I work at the league offices, you can reach me at 323.337.9010 ext 3115, kyle bolin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.5.190 (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Mr. Bolin. I'm like you, just an internet user of Wikipedia. We can use Talk:Lingerie Football League to discuss the content of that article. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruption?

Do you think Bkonrad is reverting here purely to piss me off? I cited WP:BRD, even began a thread on the discussion page, and (s)he still refuses to cooperate. Can you step in? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No. You've got two editors who disagree with you. One added an entry, you reverted, and then a different editor reverted your reversion. That's not a WP:BRD issue. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Arnhem

Outmanoeuv[re]d surely?Keith-264 (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Maneuver allows -oeuver, so AWB doesn't try and force the -re version, even when the o is present. But I won't quibble if you want to change it to -re. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

lists of lists

These are getting tagged as orphans and stubs. Are they SIAs, do you think? PamD (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Further: it seems to me that this was a perfectly reasonable dab page. I wonder why you needed to change it? PamD (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I was de-dab tagging "List of ..." articles, because list articles aren't dabs. Another editor called me on it (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 16#lists of lists), and I stopped and went on to other fixes. No one else chimed in before it fell off to the archives. What do you think of the idea of (as in the case you noted) leaving the dab tag if the X in List of X is ambiguous and continuing to remove the tag from simple lists of lists? -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a page can validly be called "List of xxx (disambiguation)", thus being a dab page and not a list article? That's different from a "List of xxx" which is a list of things which are all xxxs. Perhaps! PamD (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

C.O.P.S.

This is a redirect to C.O.P.S. (TV series). I was unable to move the page so could you use those administrative powers of yours? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

relatedness

This is the English Wikipedia, so generally wiktionary links to either English words or borrowings used a non-zero amount in English are relevant. In this case "meros" is actually an English word with several meanings (some borrowed from other languages), but Wiktionary doesn't have an entry on that yet. --Delirium (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Resumed at User talk:Delirium#Wiktionary link

The Sea-Wolf

Before my edits, the article lacked connexion with others because it was underlinked. But now, after it, you said it's overlinked! Which links are acceptable then? Which links should be removed? Thanks a lot. All the best, Kayau (Talk to me! See what I've done! Sign my guestbook!) 02:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I didn't realize that someone else had thought it underlinked. Things like "life" and "love", "boat" and "fire" seemed to me to be unnecessary. I'll remove the tag now. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Dab page deletion tag

Are the dab pages Jake McKinnon (disambiguation) and For immediate release fair game for tagging with the template {{db-disambig}}? The part that throws me off is the wording in the template message, "a disambiguation page which lists one or fewer distinct topics (regardless of which articles exist)" (my emphasis). Both of the pages I mentioned have two items, but in both cases there's really nothing to disambiguate since one link is red: one never existed and one was deleted (and on For immediate release, the blue-linked article doesn't mention the dabbed term). Can I, should I, tag these?--ShelfSkewed Talk 22:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There's been some issue with the {{db-disambig}}, and you've hit upon it. It's poorly worded now, IMO, in an attempt to allow disambigs that are disambiguating currently non-existent Wikipedia articles. But I fixed For immediate release in any event. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if I'm wandering in the wilderness, I suppose it's nice to have company. Thanks, and cheers!--ShelfSkewed Talk 23:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. I also found a blue link for the actor. Still not a necessary dab page, but not quite as useless. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

ALBUMCAPS

I notice you moved River out of Eden to River Out of Eden with edit summary "Title caps similar to WP:ALBUMCAPS". FYI that article is about a book on evolution by a British author (Richard Dawkins), and the article uses "River out of Eden" which I suspect is how Dawkins would spell it (the book is ambiguous because it uses all caps). I don't know if any action is required, but thought I would mention it. Johnuniq (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the body text to match the title. I doubt Dawkins would spell it with the lowercase out, British or American. AFAIK, both use Title Caps to capitalize verb phrases or adverbs or the first word of prepositional phrases, whichever way one wants to consider "out of". -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

ALBUMCAPS 2

Hi, you recently moved Bat out of Hell and Bat out of Hell (song) to a title with a capitalized "Out". Did you notice that there were already move discussions on the talk pages? See here and here. "Out of" is a preposition, and prepositions are uncapitalized per WP:ALBUMCAPS. I trust that it was an honest mistake not noticing that the discussions were already ongoing. What do you say we file a new move request including both articles (and Bat out of Hell II: Back into Hell and Bat out of Hell III: The Monster Is Loose as well), to get some more opinions on the matter? Jafeluv (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't note the move discussions on the talk pages. I took Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Capitalization as saying to to capitalize "Out" in such phrases; the New York Times agrees (e.g., here). And "out of" is not a preposition less than 5 letters long. :-) I did pick it up in a decent-sized string of "out of" changes that I thought were fixes, which is why I didn't notice the earlier discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Started guidelines discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Capitalization#Prepositional phrases. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Great. You might want to drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music (and maybe WT:MOSCAPS) so that people know about the discussion. Jafeluv (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup

Hello. I'm trying to clear the amount of pages in this category, so I've started discussions about the reasons for tagging and what can be done on the Talk pgs concerned. I don't know what to do with the pages on there at the moment; I only know hndis pages well. As you tagged several of the pages, you might want to add to the discussions. Thanks, Boleyn3 (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wal-Mart (disambiguation) at DR

Just letting you know that the discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation) (3rd nomination) has been listed for deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 15. You may be interested in commenting. Tatterfly (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Kane

This was a pretty nifty edit — I might just have to help (as suggested) if I find myself casting about for something to do one day! Mostly, I was just stopping by to let you know that I've restored the 'airport' and 'callsign' parameters to the {{disambig}} template on that page, as they're still valid given the entries that remain. Regards, Mlaffs (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. My (bad) assumption was that they'd need two or more airport/station entries to be placed into those categories. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No sweat, and thanks in return. I'd like to hope that I'd just leveraged the text for that category description off one of the other, similar categories, but it could just as easily have been my own brain fart. Mlaffs (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

RE:User: Tassedethe

It was on accident. I thought I had stopped Twinkle from loading. --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 Talk Autographs Contribs 01:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

dab basics

hi. i notice you have been shadowing some of my honest yet arguably misaligned attempts at 'cleaning up' a few dab pages - i still have a fair bit to learn so am approaching this experience with an open mind (especially 'blanket' reversions of honest endeavour).

anyway, i am a little confused about name dab pages - eg king george. in english, mention of george the 1st/2nd etc naturally links to the english king of the same number - ie primary topic or likelihood, but if i put it 1st then it should be chronological (george 1). but george 3 was not reverted as chronological but left as primary topic.

anyway, i am interested in further editing these dabs - please tell me/show me one page you and i have edited today that you 'like' and i will use that as a model of todays further endeavours...Jabberjawjapan (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess one way to look at the "priorities" of ordering is this:

1. If there's a primary topic (there is an article at the base name and the disambiguation page has an explicit "(disambiguation)" in the title), then there needs to be an introductory paragraph identifying the primary topic WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic
2. The other topics (the non-primary entries) should be ordered in order of likelihood. WP:MOSDAB#Order of entries
   • If the likelihood isn't clear, then another ordering can be used. This could be alphabetical or chronological or reverse chronological or possibly something else. Even then, listing entries that have articles of their own before entries that don't (red links or links only in the description) is still the proper idea.

The ordering of the non-primary topics doesn't affect the introduction of the primary topic coming at the top of the page. And the use of alphabetical on one dab page doesn't mean that another dab page can't use chronological. Peter Parker (disambiguation) is the dab page we've edited that I have on my watchlist; it may be a good model. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In regard to your recent edit of Terror, we recommended that, in the future, you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you for your support of this great project. As I'm sure you can appreciate, we have no choice but to block vandalism of our pages. If you have an honest dispute, your fellow editors require you to bring it up on the talk page of the article. Wholesale deletion of entire sections will not be permitted. This is your only warning. --BurnOMG (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You are being incivil. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In regard to your recent accusation of being incivil per the page on Terror, I have deleted your comments from my talk page because they are not applicable to me. Wholesale deletion of entire sections is vandalism. It is not edit warring.

The vandal in question is trying to delete the only article on the term Terror. This is vandalism, plain and simple. You are not superior to your fellow editors. If you promote vandalism out of some misguided sense of loyalty to your friends here on Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. In the future, please review the actual case before you recreate the vandalism. Thank you. --BurnOMG (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

What article are you claiming that ShelfSkewed removed from the non-article disambiguation page Terror? You are also not superior to your fellow editors, and you do not own the disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

ShelfSkewed turned an article page into a disambiguation page and then deleted the only article on the topic. Your fellow editors expect you to review a case before taking action. Deleting the only information about the term is blatant vandalism. You are to assume good faith and never take action against someone based on the word of another editor. If you do not have time to review the case, do not take action. Deleting the only article on Terror is vandalism. You have committed vandalism and compounded your mistake by ignoring a warning and committing it again. That is why I have imposed a ban on your editing for 24 hours. Please take the time to review your actions and the case in question if you choose to be involved further. Thank you. --BurnOMG (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong about a few things. You cannot impose a ban on my editing. Terror was a dab page long before ShelfSkewed cleaned it up. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for Vandalism

You are being blocked for your vandalism of the Terror article for 24 hours. You were warned to stop the wholesale deletion of the entire article and you continued deleting it. Please demonstrate your good faith in this matter and refrain from editing for 24 hours. If you break this ban, your fellow editors will have no choice but to make the ban physical and possibly permanent. This is your only warning. Thank you. --BurnOMG (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This is humorous. Good luck with that block. I will confirm now that I will not be refraining from editing, so please make whatever "physical and possibly permanent" block you think is warranted, and thank you for my second "only" warning. -- JHunterJ (talk)

You have left me no choice. Wikipedia is a group of fellow editors. You will be banned according to your actions, not your status. --BurnOMG (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the discussion about this "ban" that you believe is or will be imposed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's something that may interest you: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Danbur.--ShelfSkewed Talk 18:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Half time (disambiguation)

Many thanks for finishing off my attempt to clean up the disambiguation of "Half time". I had managed to move the original "Half time" to "Half time (electronics)", and cleaned up the redirects, but was unable to move the "Half time (disambiguation)" to "Half time" over the redirect that was left. I guess that required sysop privileges, so I'm grateful for your help. --RexxS (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Yes, an admin bit was required. The page showed up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages‎, and some of us take care of them as they pop up there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That's good to know. May I drop you a note here for similar tasks if I get stuck with disambiguation in the future? --RexxS (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Or post it to the malplaced's project page's "Manual list" section. There's also {{db-movedab}} that will request any admin to delete one page (the base name redirect) in order to move another page (the disambiguation page) over it, in case you need it when I'm on break -- like next weekend. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Chuck

Howdy. I was just going over my watchlist and noticed that on April 30th you removed a comment on the Chuck article advising people to follow Wikipedia guidelines for partial title matches on disambiguation pages. Was your removal intentional? What's your position on this sort of thing in disambiguation pages? I'll clean it up again, unless I'm misinterpreting something... I'd appreciate it if you could include your reply on my talk page, to get my attention.  :)  ◉ ghoti 22:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

continued on User talk:Pmc#Chuck

Daisy

Whoa -- since when do we move partial title matches to "See Also"? If you don't think they belong on the page, delete them. The relevant section of MOS:DP says nothing at all about including partial title matches there, and having such a long list a) looks ridiculous and b) encourages anyone who sees that to think that they can add whatever they want to a dab page as long as they put it under "See Also." Sorry, but this is way out of left field. I'm undoing your change. Propaniac (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been doing it as a way to reduce personal drama. I have no issue with you deleting them, though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said they should be deleted; I said if you don't think they belong on the page, _you_ should delete them. My feeling is that they should be kept on the page, in part because it's going to take about six seconds for people to start re-adding Daisy Duck. But there is a rational argument for removing them entirely, whereas there is no rational argument for moving them to "See Also," therefore I will accept the first option but will refuse the latter. As noted in my edit summary on the page, I re-added Daisy Bell because even the beginning of that article states that hardly anybody actually knows it's called "Daisy Bell"; "Daisy" is as likely a search term as any for someone looking up that song. Propaniac (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I gave you my rational argument. You disagree, but that doesn't make it irrational. Lists of people (or characters) with partial title matches should be moved to an anthroponymy article, or move to the end of the list in a "People with the name" section. Other partial title matches are either deleted or moved to the See also section, since they aren't ambiguous with it. If the song is ambiguous, it wasn't apparent from the description. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Your argument for moving it to the "See Also" section is "to reduce personal drama." That's not an argument, let alone a rational one. There's little more to say in this dispute but I wish you wouldn't keep miscasting my opinion, first that I wanted them to be deleted, and then that I resisted moving them anywhere but where they were. The only option I have rejected is the one you actually attempted, which is moving them to the "See Also" section. Deleting them or moving them to another section or another page would all have been acceptable because there's some apparent, justifiable basis for doing so, other than to try to avoid some imaginary "drama". Propaniac (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a habit from other interactions with other editors on other disambiguation pages. It's a reason, and a rational one, and not imaginary. And the guidelines do not prohibit it, even though it is not listed as one of the types explicitly allowed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Theta functions

Thanks for looking over the Theta function (disambiguation) page.

You have

Theta functions \vartheta(z;\tau) are special functions of several complex variables.

but this only applies to your first grouping -- the Chebyshev function takes only real arguments, and Ferfman's theta takes sets...

CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That description comes from the primary topic article theta function. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Er, yes. That's why I was trying to come up with a good way of restricting it to that first group, theta functions in the sense of Theta function, where the other articles are theta functions not in that sense. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If that's the primary topic (and it is, being the article at the base name), then in theory the dab page is supposed to lead with that kind of statement in the intro, since people looking for that article won't be clicking through to the dab page, so it doesn't need to be mixed in with the list of other ambiguous articles. If the first group isn't really a set of ambiguous articles, though, and is instead a list of sub-types of that kind of theta function, then some restructuring may be needed (list them in the base article and leave the dab for the other thetas, or something). -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm unfortunately not well-versed in complex analysis (haven't gone much beyond Picard's theorem, I'm afraid), so I can't give a proper answer here. But my understanding is that all of the functions in the first group are special cases of the Riemann theta function. I was wondering if you knew more than I, and how you thought it should be structured.

Edit: Oh wait, you're with WP:WikiProject Disambiguation not WP:WikiProject Mathematics. In that case, what's the usual way for going about this? There is one major article and several articles that are close extentions, and then a disparate group of unrelated articles.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

We can roll the related functions in to a list on the main article (and leave them on or remove them from the disambiguation page), or we can move the disambiguation page to the base name and list all the functions in two groups, or there may be other options forthcoming from the math crew or on Talk:Theta function (disambiguation) -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll leave it to the Math WikiProject to decide whether the dab page should be at Theta function or Theta function (disambiguation) since they'll be more familiar with the importance of the various functions. It looks like all of the basic options I was considering are basically OK from the perspective of the DAB project, right? CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess so -- I'm not sure which options you were considering. But if the primary topic is covered in the intro para of the dab, and the other ambiguous articles are listed (in whateve groups make sense) beneath that, yeah, it should be OK. And anything that's not OK with the dab project but makes sense here can probably get easy consensus on the Talk page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for your time. Keep up the good (underappreciated?) work at DAB. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)