User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 21

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.

Katyn

I have restored the redirect structure, as it is wrong to redirect from the name of an existing place to the most significant event that happened there (i.e. Stalingrad to Battle of Stalingrad and so on). --Illythr (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Continued at Talk:Katyn#Target -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

DAB pages

Hey, DAB pages are for the capital and non-capital version alike, so, i.e. PHD and Ph.D. (disambiguation) are (correctly) the same page. i.e. when you removed all the acronyms, and added a link to PHD, you just added a link back to the same page and deleted a ton of entries. Best, 0¹⁸ (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

PHD is a separate page, and has always been so. Discussion engaged at Talk:Ph.D. (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Proof

I'm not going to revert your edits to Proof again, but there is an extensive ongoing debate on the talk page there about the structure of the page. It would help greatly if you explained your edits there. Some aspects of the previous page structure were, in my view, wrong, but others reflected expert opinion. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Itemized explanation there now. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much indeed. -- Radagast3 (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Around the World in Eighty Days move

Wonder if you could handle a move I promised to do a while ago and find I can't because I would need admin privileges. I've temporarily made a redirect from Around the World in Eighty Days to Around the World in Eighty Days (Verne novel). It would be better to have the Verne page moved as the primary topic. I figure you are familiar with dab stuff and would understand what's up. I'd be happy to go through a move request if you would rather. I'll get answer here. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 21:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 21:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for handling that. --erachima talk 22:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Helix magazine (disambiguation)

Could I impose on you to address the above page? Prod was removed by someone who doesn't know what a disambiguation page is. Propaniac (talk)

Just FYI: The SF magazine has an article at Helix SF, and "Helical magazines" are discussed at Magazine (firearms)#Helical magazines, although a search turned up no evidence that they are also referred to as "helix magazines". Regards--ShelfSkewed Talk 20:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The redirect should be deleted, and I'll be happy to do so, but I'll wait a few days to see if the Talk page there yields any other useful information. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

After reading through the admin nomination-related pages, I'd like to take a little more time to beef up my article work (as opposed to dab and vandalism work) before jumping into the caldron. I hope I can count on the nomination in a few months? Thanks in any event. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 20:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary disambig?

A relatively new editor recently moved Pretty Little Liars to Pretty Little Liars (book series) to "avoid confusion between the book series and the now popular TV series" (Pretty Little Liars (TV series)), but it seems like unnecessary disambiguation to me. There are only two topics and a hatnote can solve any confusion. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 05:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Restored. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Holiday

Please be aware that the page Holiday has the {{inuse}} tag on it. I am in the process of a conversion for which I have received a little support and no opposition in a discussion. I can be Holiday (disambiguation) the way it is now while also pasting its contents into Holiday for the moment while WP:RM is being worked out. Tatterfly (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

{{in use}} means that you can edit it and possibly avoid edit conflicts. It does not mean that you can make a cut-and-paste move of another page. Work out the WP:RM, and then (if the move request results in a move) the disambiguation page will be at the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have been in the process of transferring the material to different pages. This time, I did not change Holiday (disambiguation) while this can be worked out. Tatterfly (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Please also do not change Holiday while you work out the RM. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Dwarf

An editor has just reversed the move you made last August. She's also only done half the work anyway: see User_talk:Sonjaaa#Dwarfs. Just a "heads up"! I'm now off for a few days. PamD (talk) 07:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

She's So California

...But is it okay for a dab to have nothing but MOS:DABMENTION listings? Precedent seems to say no. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is okay. I'm not sure what precedent you're remembering, but the guidelines allow it because it is functionally required: if there are ambiguous things, then they need to be disambiguated. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Laodices

Hi there,

I have spent over two weeks researching and updating all the Laodices, who are descendants of Seleucus I Nicator. The links I have left in red were for articles I am planning to do for wikipedia.

I really don't understand why you changed the links in particular the reference links I provided. I have been on Wikipedia since 2004, searching, creating and adding in material in articles from antiquity. It is editors like you, that is making my life on Wikipedia harder and harder to add my contributions here.

Thank you for your understanding,

Anriz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anriz (talk • contribs) 06:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages don't use references. They aren't articles. Please see and follow WP:MOSDAB for disambiguation pages, or use list articles for the content lists you have been working on. Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Laodices

When you deleted the Laodices that I have arranged and I put in, there were other Greek noblewoman of this name, I have found in historical sources I added in that you deleted. Everytime, I do an article on Wikipedia I always do everything right and follow the article writing policies of Wikipedia.

Anriz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anriz (talk • contribs) 06:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Please also follow WP:MOSDAB's disambiguation page writing guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

splitting up different spellings of energy

Hello. I noticed you reversed my merging of the various different energy, energia, energeia dab pages. I did this after a lot of work on articles related to these words showed me a problem, and I would like to ask you to reconsider or explain. In several medieval contexts which have articles in Wikipedia, and which have a right to be here, these spellings are used by people almost interchangeably. In medieval contexts these are just 3 different Latinate versions of the original Greek word. All three can be found referring to the same thing. Even putting that aside, I know of no context, modern or ancient, where they are not highly inter-connected words that might at least sometimes need disambiguation in order for someone to find the right article. Of course I do understand the other point of your edit which is that the modern scientific meaning of energy may be primary and I have no position on that. I just would like people searching for ALL the related words to have the possibility to get to the right articles - even if they are a minority.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Just as a practical example of on an article I was working on, to help explain, if you see the disambiguation header on potentiality and actuality it will now need to refer to TWO over-lapping dabs. And that header is already too long. In general, any practical solution for that kind of thing would be good. Not really sure how having two over-lapping dabs makes any job simpler though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no dispute of any article's "right" to be on Wikipedia. The disambiguation pages are for readers, and readers who are looking for one of the ambiguous "energia" articles shouldn't have to wade through the "energy" disambiguation page. Keeping them separate seems more beneficial, and adding the cross links to each other helps those readers who might end up on the wrong page for the article they were seeking somehow. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Two practical things then. 1. Do you have any advice about the header for potentiality and actuality? It is a case of a subject with lots of words for the same thing, and lots of those words having other uses. 2. Why are you only sticking to two dab's where one is the unusual spelling energia (no separate dab for energeia) and what criteria are you using for determining which links can be on which of the two dabs? (Shouldn't they all be more or less identical on the basis of your reasoning?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

1. I cleaned it up to help the readers reaching it through the Energeia redirect, and moved the list of simply related topics to "See also". 2a. I'm using the spellings of the existing disambiguation pages and the spellings of the existing ambiguous articles. The Energeia doesn't appear to have any ambiguous articles -- the ambiguous articles all use the spellings "energy" or "energia". Which is, I assume, why the disambiguation pages were named the way they were. 2b. The criteria for inclusion is ambiguity: articles that indicate an ambiguity with "energia" (as a title, not a concept) should be listed on that page; articles that indicate ambiguity with "energy" (as a title, not a concept) should be listed on that page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, but titles that could be confused for potentiality and actuality include a lot more than just energeia though? The list that was in the article makes sense to people who know the subject at hand. There are lots of words used for these terms. I think my bigger concern by far is your edit of the article, mentioned below...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This solution obviously just removes most of the links that editors of the article think were important for disambiguation. How is that a solution? Why is energeia (=actuality=entelechy) given precedence as if it were the only subject of potentiality and actuality which might have other meanings? How can you decide to remove mention of the others? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Moves to see also, not removes. If the hatnote is too long (as you correctly noted above), the only way to shorten it is to take some of the text out of it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but we seem to be talking past each other. A See Also section is not a dab header is it? They have entirely different functions. Someone searching for the right article does not first read it all the way to the bottom and then think about whether he or she can read more? So to repeat, you've simply crippled the disambiguating for this admittedly difficult case, by effectively deleting most of them. How is that a solution? By the way, putting these terms in See Also is useless because they are discussed a lot in the article already. Such words are not normally put in See Also sections?

Let me start again by going through a scenario needing a disambiguation which I and other editors of this article obviously find likely. One reason a person might hit potentiality and actuality is because they searched for energeia. When they hit the page, they might need help to work out if they have the right article. That is the scenario you have allowed to be covered. But the problem is that you've apparently picked just this one search term out of all the words with the same problem. How did you pick it as the special one when you are not even an editor on this article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no issue with my edit to the header at potentiality and actuality being reverted. I was trying to address the problem you pointed out. I don't know what you mean by "not even an editor on this article" -- it sounds like there's an entry criterion before being allowed to edit hatnotes. But I picked it by examining the redirects that target the page and seeing which one had a disambiguation page. The disambiguation page at Dunamis (disambiguation) seems a stretch, but I've hatnoted it as well now. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I note you added/allowed a few more dab links, which helps. BTW I also removed some of the see alsos you added, because a few of those words do not work as see alsos. Concerning criteria for editing I think my remark is just practical and very commonly made in Wikipedia: If you come into a complex problem it is generally recommended that you familiarize yourself with it first, and if you can't, you are generally recommended to "talk". Anyway, the latest version is at least neat, which was indeed an aim, so let's now see if anyone thinks of a better way to do it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem did not appear that complex to me. I've been working with disambiguation pages and hatnotes primarily. And I'm happy it seems neat now. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess it is one of those deceptive cases where ordinary words and technical uses and uses from different times, overlap.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Twins

Thanks for looking at Twins. I'm still relatively new at DABs, so I really appreciate knowing what the best thing to do is from a more experienced editor. One style question, why did you choose non-section headers for Twins_(disambiguation)? 0¹⁸ (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It seemed short enough. Sections (and a table of contents) are useful for longer dabs, but for shorter ones they can take up more space than the entries themselves. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Magyar

Hallo there! You edited Magyar see - was it a mistake that you didnt put {{disambig}} on the page again? (I didnt change it, because I have seen that you are very active in the project). --Christian75 (talk)

It was a mistake that the previous editor removed it, yes, and I didn't notice. Fixed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No disrepect intended

I hope you didn't take offense at the casual wording I used on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation this morning. I know you and I have disagreed on the primary topic issue in the past, and probably will again, but I have complete respect for your good faith and your contributions to Wikipedia, and certainly didn't mean to imply anything else. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -- minimal offense taken. It did seem odd, and I probably jumped on it as a rhetorical device since we were talking about neutrality. Even that's a stretch, and I'm sorry for that. I'd be happy to join a "mutual admiration society" with you, and you can have carte blanche on all future casual wordings. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Cowman

Question for you on Talk:Cowman. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Apo

Those were interesting changes you made on the above DAB page, and I'm not saying I disagree with the shifting around of the content, but I am struck by the fact that you put back the longish descriptions of each page. I have been editing under the following stricture:

• Keep descriptions short. Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts

Is there something wrong with paring down the descriptions as I did in an earlier version? Your friend in puzzlement, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The short descriptions weren't descriptions of the entry, but rather general classifications. "Royal Air Force" does not describe Acting Pilot Officer, but "the lowest commissioned grade in the Royal Air Force" does. If no description is needed, the entry could be reduced to just "Acting Pilot Officer", but if one is needed, it should describe the entry. Usually, I take the lead sentence from the article. If that's long, I may drop some of the adjectives and adverbs, so in this case "a grade in the Royal Air Force" might also work. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, obviously I disagree with you, but it is not worth quarreling about. Sincerely, your pal, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverting my last comment, which was needless. I apologize for it. Time for a Wikibreak. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote at Twin

I don't know if this has been on your radar at all, but following the addition of the Minnesota Twins to the hatnote, there's been a ridiculously long "discussion" about the phrasing of the hatnote and the order of the different links. Unsurprisingly, O18 and myself are for one phrasing, while Cresix supports another and insists that 2 people aren't enough to support a change, while 1 person is apparently enough to block it. Rather than continue going back-and-forth with Cresix (or, god forbid, posting an RFC about it) I was hoping you could drop back in and indicate which phrasing you prefer, and if it's the one O18 and I like, hopefully 3 supporters is the magic number Cresix is looking for, and if you agree with Cresix (which you may, since that's the phrasing that you originally put in place), I'll let it go. So I'd appreciate your input. The two proposed phrasings and the discussion (although you're certainly welcome to skip slogging through the latter) are at Talk:Twin#Hatnote phrasing. Thanks. Propaniac (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

So commented. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for adding a fourth voice to this discussion. 0¹⁸ (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Editing my content

I saw you edited my content, no worries. I am new to trying to post to Wikipedia. What I am trying to correct what I know is the grossly inaccurte posted attendance for Gen Con 1990's. Most importantly the wildly inflated 30,000 attendee reported for 1995. I am the show's historian and hard documentation is difficult to come by. While working on the 40th anniversary book it was like pulling teeth just to get dates and locations for the early shows. Now the true numbers may be in ex-TSR staffer Harold Johnson's gargage, and someday he may lets me take a crack at it. As far as I know the only accurate attendance numbers come from after WotC purchase. On paper there is a huge drop in attendance. As one who worked the Dealer room there was no precived attendance drop. As I was told my Dave Arnerson and Peter Adkison any numbers presented by TSR in the 90's are not to be trusted. Another point I wanted to make is that compared to the current location in Indianapolis there is no way 30,000 attendee could have fit in the Mecca and surrounding halls. Mecca was just too old and too little, and there weren't hotels in all of Milwaukee to sleep 30,000 attendee. I just would like there to be some way of denoting removing the attendance as unknown or as unreliable and the reason why. Can you tell me whay I need to do? RandallGenconhistorian (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If you publish the information here, then it's original research, even if you are highly qualified to make the observation. Do you have a website or blog or something like that to write this up on (as the official Gen Con historian)? Once it's published elsewhere, it can be summarized and cited by reference to that source. Or if someone else has published (in a reliable source) information that the previous numbers are suspect, that can be cited. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Avatar

Now that I can tell you, without the risk of canvassing, I reopened the discussion on whether or not the Avatar definition was the primary topic for the term. This time, people saw things our way. It is amazing what a little time can do. Figured I'd let you know. Oldag07 (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Dab templates

Thanks for the fixes you made to the Dab templates. I'm hoping these templates will be used and useful, but I'm still relatively new to both disambiguation work and template creation, so I appreciate the feedback and improvements from more experiences editors. 28bytes (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

AC/DC

The AC adapter is commonly called the "AC-DC adapter"[1]. ~AH1^(TCU) 14:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Please add that information to the AC adapter article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your contributions to the article Pig (disambiguation)!Chrisrus (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Journal

Hi, you reverted my redirect of Journal to Journal (disambiguation) and I wonder why. As far as I can see, "Journal" does not contain any worthwhile info that is not on the disambiguation page or the pages that are linked from there. "Journal" is not even linked to from the dab page (which is proper, I think). I'd appreciate an explanation on why this should be so. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It caught the attention of the "malplaced disambiguation page" list. Removing the primary topic from an ambiguous name results in a request to move the disambiguation page to the base name. Since there didn't appear to be any discussion of that change, WP:RM should be used. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I see, thanks. So what is needed is that the "journal" page gets deleted and the "Journal (dab)" page gets moved to "Journal", is that correct? Can't that just be done with a {{db-move}}? --Crusio (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't think db-move applies here. The other option would be that the article on Journal gets cleaned up. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Foster Care

Would appreciate your comments at Talk:Foster_care#Non_topic_text. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Primary topic

Don't want to suggest this on the WP:DAB talk as I'm not that familiar with its archives. My basic understanding of the purpose of primary topic is to ensure that the article you'd "expect" to find at the base name in a general purpose encyclopaedia is at the base name, and if its unclear what should be at the base name, then put a dab there. That suggest another test to me: What do other encyclopaedias do? There's caveats there, like with the existing measures, primarily because different projects have different policies and biases. However, the major non-English Wikipedias, Encyclopedia Brittanica, Columbia Encyclopedia are all potentially useful for comparison. Think this is worth taking to the project page?--Nilfanion (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it's in the archives either, but it might not hurt to bring up. Physical encyclopedias have less of an issue with ambiguity though, because of both the reduced number of topics and the lessened (or absent) usage of a search function. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Liquid metal

I'm hoping you can help me like you did before. I had created a new Liquid metal page and you helped me with adding it to the disambiguation page correctly. Well another editor decided that I used too many direct quotes and they deleted the page. I've run the page through Copyscape repeatedly and fixed any duplications that it found. But I don't want to put the page back up wrong. What is the best way to go about fixing this situation? Also, a second editor deleted my username space page where I keep the drafts that I'm working on. Can you please put that back for me? Kandi111777 (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The material deleted was a copyright infringement. I have explained at talk that copyright infringement is illegal, whether in user space or otherwise. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Drake Circus

I'm getting a headache trying to understand what has happened here. Jolly Ω Janner 17:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize Drake Circus (traffic junction) was a redirect to the Drake Circus. The traffic junction should probably redirect elsewhere or be deleted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be unaware of local customs. Drake Circus is not just a junction, but also used to describe the surrounding locality, hence why the ward of Drake is added on the dab page. The junction is used as the first line to put in background information on where the names "Drake (ward)" and "Drake Circus (shopping centre)" come from. And yes, delete the traffic junction page as well as Drake circus. The talk page is messed up too. Jolly Ω Janner 18:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding that information to the article at Drake (ward) would be the usual course for making the unaware aware. The local customs I am more familiar with are Wikipedia:Disambiguation, and Drake Circus popped up at WP:MALPLACED. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)