User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 6

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.

Adminship

Congratulations, you are now an administrator - and with unanimous support! If you haven't already, now is the time to visit the Wikipedia:New admin school and look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Warofdreams talk 02:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll get to work... -- JHunterJ 02:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on adminship. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Grats on admin. Well earned. Turlo Lomon 19:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that I missed your nomination - I would have supported you, and had even considered nominating you myself. Congratulations on the tools upgrade. Dekimasuよ! 14:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't feel slighted -- the process was less contentious than some of the disambig pages I've worked on. :-) -- JHunterJ 15:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

HP

For the time being, I'm minded to leave the article alone. Although there is some reverting going on, the general process does seem to be generating discussion, and the article is evolving - hopefully, towards a consensus. I tend to reserve protection for situations where discussion has broken down or there is a series of rapid reverts (or vandalism). Warofdreams talk 16:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if I made you feel that it was a versus situation between us, because I certaintly didn;t think so. We have two different opinions of the Harry Potter/HP connection notability, but I can be convinced to change my mind. It has happened many times before, and when i am wrong, just about anyone will tell you I own up to it. I am just thinking that the normal user isn't going to come to Wikipedia, type in 'HP', and expect to be dropped into the Harry Potter article, which is what the DAB is for - to to catch folk who simply type in a few letters and serve as a jump-off point for multiple uses of what's being Dab'd. Maybe potter would be better off with a quicklink or whatnot; I just don't see HP being the DAB. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it was just an ironic comment -- I had been spending too much energy on the HP issue. But to the point, someone wondering what "HP, JC, and me" meant might search on those initials, and should be directed to Harry Potter for it (and hoo boy does Jc need to be cleaned up...) Cheers! -- JHunterJ 23:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Retaliatory warning

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to User:Reginmund. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginmund (talk • contribs) 08:00, 6 October 2007

This in response to this edit

South Carolina

I personally think the list is very long for the article and very distracting. I didn't see many list like these when I was working on state articles, so I do not know if there was a debate or not for those articles. (I'm not jealous either, since I was born in Beaufort, SC at the naval hospital). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare disambig

Since we disagree on this, I've started a discussion at Talk:William Shakespeare#Two Shakespeare disambig links to see what the consensus might be. Personally, I worry that having the two disambigs will confuse people and cause readers to not find the info they seek. However, using Shakespeare (disambiguation) with a redirect on the other disambig will ensure everyone finds the info they seek.--Alabamaboy 00:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Assistance

Was this edit by the user correct? It is supposed to be a redirect, is it not? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I normally opt for the redirects in hatnotes, using the guidelines for entries on dab pages as a pointer, but WP:HATNOTE doesn't specify a preference. In this case, I might even try {{distinguish2|Kal-El, the mainstream Superman}}, which produces:

Not to be confused with Kal-El, the mainstream Superman.

But bring it up on the Talk page or on ThuranX's Talk page -- or on WT:HATNOTE if you'd like to propose it as a style guideline. -- JHunterJ 10:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

William Shakespeare {Otheruses}

I don't understand this edit. I've undone it, for the moment. What is the intention, please? AndyJones 12:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It links the primary topic "base name" to its disambiguation page "base name (disambiguation)". See WP:D, WP:MOSDAB, and WP:HATNOTE for guidelines. -- JHunterJ 12:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see there's a discussion on the point, here. We can continue our discussion, there. AndyJones 12:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a double redirect, but what is objection

You are correct, that is not a double redirect. My apologies for the incorrect usage. But there is no reason to link to a redirect page when the disambig page can link to the main article like I set it up to do. May I ask what your objection to this is? --Alabamaboy 19:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I was bringing it into guidelines. "Blah (disambiguation)", when there is a primary topic for the "Blah" redirect, uses the same intro proaragraph -- the base name is linked and defined. See also WP:R#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken for the more generalized case. -- JHunterJ 23:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are obsessing too much to the letter of the guidelines on this. As it states, "Reasons not to change redirects include: Redirects can indicate possible future articles and Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form." Neither of those apply in this case. But I'm not going to argue over such a minor issue.--Alabamaboy 02:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are not understanding the spirit of the guidelines enough. But I'm happy not to argue over it. Now, if only the hatnotes on William Shakespeare could be brought into sensibility... -- JHunterJ 02:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears the consensus there is to only have the one Shakespeare (disambiguation). The editors who chimed in on this are the regular editors of that article and they appear to not want the two disambigs either. We will, of course, wait a bit and see if others add their opinions. I should also note that other editors appear to disagree with your view of using some of these disambigs, such as the one you added at Ronald Reagan.--Alabamaboy 02:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If there's a problem with the dab pages (as opposed to the primary topic article), the primary topic article Talk is not the place to reach consensus on the dab pages. This is pretty straightforward. Thanks for the note on Reagan, though -- I have no idea how the editor who disagreed expects Reagan (disambiguation) to get any exposure. That's an even worse edit than the abbreviated hatnote set on William Shakespeare. -- JHunterJ 02:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering why you hadn't said anything about Reagan. Do understand, I have nothing against disambigs in general and since Reagan redirects to Ronald Reagan, there should be one at the top of that article (IMHO). My issue is having two disambig where one contains the same info as the other. Also, do understand that if the list of names at Shakespeare (disambiguation) ever gets too long, I would have no problem breaking them into two disambigs like you did. But that just seems premature at this point. Best, --Alabamaboy 02:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't typically Watch all of the dabs I clean up, much less the base name pages that (should) link to them. Note, again, that the two disambig pages do not now contain the same info (and should not). If the list of surname holders becomes too long, the Shakespeare (disambiguation) would be split into Shakespeare (disambiguation) and a surname article (not a dab page) Shakespeare (surname). The {{hndis}} page for the full name William Shakespeare (disambiguation) would continue in its current form regardless of that split, just like James Smith (disambiguation) is unaffected by the split of Smith (disambiguation) and Smith (surname). Yes, the disambiguation and anthroponymy projects in Wikipedia are my area of expertise; that shouldn't be characterized as "obsessing" over it. :-) -- JHunterJ 11:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Reagan redirect

You did not see any clarification with any redirect because the clarification I spoke about in my edit summary was having to do with the in-text notation at the top of the edit screen (shown only in edit mode) talking about the lead. That had nothing to do with my second edit, removing the redirect. If someone wanted to find an article about Nancy Reagan, they would type in "nancy reagan" and be taken to Nancy Reagan. If someone wanted to find an article on Michael Reagan, or Ron Reagan, or Maureen Reagan, they would type the specific name; not just "Reagan." It's not necessary to have the redirect, as far as I'm concerned; but I guess you can add it back if it makes so much of a difference. Happyme22 03:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

resumed on User Talk:Happyme22#What does this mean?

Removing cites from name articles

Hi JHunterJ. If you are referring to the babynames.co.uk links I removed last night - no, there was no discussion. The website is a self-published site that was spammed (see these contributions for one of the offending IPs). The site claims they can assume no responsibility for the accuracy or veracity of [their] data! I used my own judgment in deciding it wasn't a reliable source. If you disagree we could open a discussion - maybe on one of the article talk pages - and I'll revert my edits if there's a consensus that it should be used. I was hoping to find a better source instead though. -- SiobhanHansa 11:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

resumed on User talk:SiobhanHansa#Removing cites from name articles

Operation Mockingbird

Operation Mockingbird- As you may be aware, recently Intangible2.0 nominated Operation Mockingbird for deletion. When he/she was unable to accomplish this they asked for a discussion -in which I (kc) then inserted some good links relevant to the text. I did this because that was one of the users primary complaints about the page. Then I followed the user on the issue and found that they have altered most of the pages relating to this page-and deleted the linking to the page, amongst other things. Nothing drastic mind you-but systematically it alters the relevance of the Operation Mockingbird page. In any case, today Intangible2.0 decided to delete 3 of the links I placed on the page. I replied in the talk page and would appreciate your review on this issue with this user. I am not a big wikipedian, so this may not be the way to handle this, but something just doesn't feel right with this and I think wikipedia should be aware of how this has proceeded Thanks for your attention in this matter.

kc

• Operation Mockingbird
• history
• Talk:Operation Mockingbird
• Intangible2.0

ps- I will check back to see if you have any questions. I used to have a log in-but I forgot the password, and figured it was not that important because I only wiki now and then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.143.164.74 (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I took a little step in adding a note about the unsuccessful AfD to the talk page. You're on the right track by bringing up the deleted links on the talk page. Another approach would be to use the links as citations of some of the material in the article, which would meet WP:EL. Let me know if you need assistance with that. -- JHunterJ 20:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• The reason I linked the articles is that the info was already used on the page -and they complained (intanbible2.0) that the only sources were conspiracy type sites.) Admittedly, disinfo.com (one of my links) is not a news corp., but it is hardly prisonplanet. I also was able to find a book online in its full text that was written way back in the 60's-and was a best seller. It is even reviewed on the CIA website, so I wouldn't dismiss it as wild conspiracy linking.

In any case, I responded to his original complaint about the page -without doing all the html (because it did take me time to find everything and I really didn't want to spend much more energy. It's annoying that they made a complaint and when that is addressed they begin deleting. Rather disingenuous of the actual complaint, and leaves me wondering if they just want to see it deleted. Anyway--- I can go ahead and try putting the articles back up in some reference order (that's what you are asking me to do-right?). If they try it again I will ask you to intercede, but they do appear determined to have their way on this issue. And this same person did a similar thing some time back sockpuppetry etc They appear to be a rather stubborn, albeit intelligent contributor, who is not easily going to leave the AFD issue. Well...I don't have a much more time I can put on this now so it may be in a day or so. Thanks. kc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.143.164.74 (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Son Goku

Hey JHunterJ/Archive 6, didn't you once tell me that adding something like this to a disambiguation page is not helpful? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be on the Son Goku (disambiguation), but it would be okay on a Goku (disambiguation) page. I saw that addition and meant to create one. I guess I will this morning. :-) -- JHunterJ 10:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't sure what to do at that point. There is a discussion happening here concerning where hatnotes should specifically always go and you're more than welcome to help reach an agreement. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you quickly see the history page at Buu? The sysop Deiz fully protected the page to prevent me from editing it, and there wasn't even an edit war. Funny, he obviously protected it just so a non-sysop like me can't use a redirect wiki-link. Seems unjustified to me. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: AWB usage

Sorry about that, I'm just learning more about AWB. I'll try to make everything a lot more meaningful. I just need to find that function still though. Again, I apologize, and I will greatly cut down on the small edits. Thanks for the heads up. -- dhp1080 ^(u·t·c) 01:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm just referring to how I could probably use to not just simply use AWB for its internal cleanup functions. I figure I could possibly use it to perform a more concise job. Right now I'm most likely just going to stick to spell checking articles until I find something more useful. It's less hectic than what I'm normally doing (recent changes), so I enjoy being able to do something without actively reverting edits, then warning users. -- dhp1080 ^(u·t·c) 01:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

You've marked 103rd Regiment of Foot for deletion, citing "It is a disambiguation page that only points to a single article, or no articles at all. (CSD G6)." "CSD G6" - this states "Housekeeping. Non-controversial maintenance, such as temporarily deleting a page to merge page histories, performing uncontroversial page moves, or cleaning up redirects."

This is intended for disambiguation pages which only point to a single article. It is not intended for disambiguation pages where only one of the articles it points to has yet been written. Disambiguation pages are a critical part of the encyclopedia's framework, allowing an efficient structuring of articles which do and do not exist, and enabling links for not-yet-written pages to be made to the correct title.

Please be more careful in future. (I've undeleted it) Shimgray | talk | 11:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And please don't remove redlinks from these disambiguation pages, for that matter (I've just cleaned that up, too). These are perfectly acceptable as part of a disambiguation page, as long as the article is likely to get written at some stage - which these are. There's no sense in discouraging article creation, or hiding useful content, without good reason. Shimgray | talk | 13:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I am being careful. Disambigs which have a bunch of redlinks and only one blue link do point to only a single article. Please read WP:MOSDAB, which covers redlinks on dab pages: "Redlinks should usually not be the only link in a given entry; link also to an existing article, so that a reader (as opposed to a contributing editor) will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information." Please include a blue link on these redlink entries that you feel might yet be written, so that the disambiguation pages can serve their function -- getting readers to the articles they sought. -- JHunterJ 17:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to invoke MOS pages, then see WP:MOSDAB#Set_index_articles. "Set index articles are list articles about a set of items that have similar or identical names. Set index articles are disambiguation-like pages that do not obey the style outlined on this page". Shimgray | talk | 17:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, that was a little blunt. More to the point, there isn't really anywhere helpful to bluelink on these - it's just the name and two dates on each line. (And I still don't get why that means "hide redlinks") Shimgray | talk | 17:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that perhaps you wanted a set index article instead of a dab, so I didn't take it as blunt -- that would mean removing the {{disambig}} tag from the pages though. You're right about there not being a useful linkable term on the entries, which is why I deleted (or hid) them. If there's another page (like the list of regiments page which I remember seeing) that mentions them, the entry could be reworded to include it. But no rush -- if you are creating the pages to be linked, I'm not going to go stomping around the other ones. One final note -- don't pipelink the entry links (also per WP:MOSDAB). Cheers! -- JHunterJ 01:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that they need to be noted as not real articles somehow, and {{disambig}} seems the most sensible way!

As to the pipelinking, hmm. The problem is that we have two kinds of bracketed suffix - ones which are there because I added them as disambiguation ("1760", say), and some which are there because they're part of the full name. There really needs to be some kind of way of distinguishing between these two... Shimgray | talk | 11:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe if it is a set index article, it is a real article (and a valid target for wikilinks) in a way that dabs aren't. The parenthetical phrase is a fine way to distinguish the linked articles -- the disambiguating phrasing doesn't have to be consistently a date or consistently a part of the name. -- JHunterJ 11:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The blue link needed there was British Army, which I've now done. Have a look at Booker T. Washington Middle School and Booker T. Washington High School for a similar example of group redlink disambiguation entries being covered by a single blue link. Carcharoth 22:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, those are poorly formatted dab pages -- multiple blue links per entry, bolding, external links. They should be tagged for {{disambig-cleanup}} or cleaned up. Dabs aren't set-index articles, they're disambiguate Wikipedia articles, so if a (possibly notable but un-articled) subject has not article to disambiguate, it shouldn't go on the disambiguation page. As far as I know, there is no separate guideline or wikiproject for school dabs. -- JHunterJ 22:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is, if you remove the redlinks, can you be sure they will be added back in to the disambiguation page if the article is created later? There are thousands of articles out there that should be on disambiguation pages that are not. Have a look at Category:Living people and browse through until you find a reasonably long list of people with the same surname. Then see how many are on the disambiguation page (if it exists). There is a bot request at the moment to try and make some headway into this, see WP:BOTREQ (near the bottom). I regularly add redlinks to disambiguation pages when I know that an article will one day be created. See James Norris and Fred Warner for examples where I recently added redlinked entries to notable scientists who should one day have articles. Another examples is Aaronovitch, where I added the third of a set of brothers, and then added a redlink to their father for good measure. Ironically, the father, who is probably more notable at the moment than the brothers, doesn't have an article yet. Carcharoth 01:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You also said (above): "multiple blue links per entry, bolding, external links" - I removed the bolding, but theye is no multiple blue links that I can see anywhere (I think you are incorrect here). As for external links, those are useful for creating the stubs if someone arrives at a dab page and think "hey, why don't I just create a stub for that". Bit-by-bit, Wikipedia improves. Ruthless enforcing of style on dab pages, on the other hand, with removal of valid redlinks and deletion of whole disambiguation pages, is not constructive. It might make the pages look nice and neat, but if it gets in the way of the sometimes chaotic wiki-process of creating new content, then style policy is just getting in the way. Carcharoth 01:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've taken the time to read about the set index articles, and I apologise for not being aware of those. It is an interesting concept. I think you are right in that the school pages I linked to are very like the ship set index articles. I think something like the early versions of Ptolemy (name) are also more like a set index article than a dab page (in its current form, it is probably a true article combined with a set of related lists). Carcharoth 09:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"* Booker T. Washington Middle School — Tampa", two blue links. Okay, it was only one line counter to that guideline. "Bit-by-bit, Wikipedia improves." I'm not saying that there is no possible benefit from those external links. Many external links that violate one or more of the guidelines have some possible benefit, but we still don't include them. Disambiguation pages are not the places for prompting editors to say "hey, why don't I write a stub for that?" -- there are other places for that (WP:RA). We aren't ruthless in applying the guidelines to disambiguation pages -- if there's a reason for breaking a guideline, I'm all for it. But the usual reasons of "it might be an article one day" or "it will help it maybe be an article one day" aren't good reasons, IMO. And a redlink is valid only if it has a bluelink to go with it; the bluelinks for good entries shouldn't be hard to come by. There's a trade-off of enabling the sometimes chaotic wiki-process of creating new content and the hopefully less chaotic process of finding the article you're looking for (which dab entries without articles inhibit). Of course I can't be sure the redlinks will be added back in, any more than I can be sure that needed blue links aren't added when an un-redlinked article is created; that's an unjust burden. Lists of people with the same name (like Ptolemy (name)) aren't disambiguation pages, right; see WP:MOSDAB#Given names or surnames and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy (and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Lists of names if that whets your appetite for more). I'm still trying to get a handle on the various set types vs. dabs too, and I've been at it for a while now... Cheers! -- JHunterJ 12:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

... and if the bluelink is added to the redlinked entries, the appropriate external links can be used as citations/references on that article's mention of the redlinked topic, and editors who are inclined to go "hey, why don't I write a stub for that?" can still be inspired through it. -- JHunterJ 12:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Superpower

I think the hatnote there needs attention, what can be done to improve it using the same {{redirect}}? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at it? Hope I'm not bothering you too much. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like for the redirect Son goku to be deleted. I don't believe it is appropiate since there already is a "Son Goku". Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm really sorry for always coming here, does the guideline claim that blue links would be best for disambig. pages? See Serena, looks like it needs cleanup but I'm not too sure. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Bother me all you like, Sesshomaru! I did update the Superpower hatnote. I'm not sure what the problem is with the Son goku redirect, now that it's pointing to Son Goku. Serena needs to be broken up into a disambiguation page and a {{Given name}} page, it looks like. Any disambiguation or given-name-holder list entry that is redlinked should have a blue link in the description to an article that covers the redlinked topic. As I just pointed another editor too above, see WP:MOSDAB#Given names or surnames and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy (and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Lists of names if you want even more). -- JHunterJ 12:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Shifting Bottleneck Heuristic

JHunterJ, I was wondering if you could give me any advice on how to make my artice, Shifting Bottleneck Heuristic any better. This is my first article published on Wikipedia and I was wondering if you had any advice on how to make it better. Any suggestions on content, format, style, grammar, or anything else you feel is necessary would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for taking the time to read my article and I hope to hear from you soon. Thank you.

Andrew Schultz 19:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I made some cleanup edits. I do not know from reading the article what a "makespan", "precedence contstraint", or "disjunctive contraint" are, and there are no WP articles for those topics. -- JHunterJ 00:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Water breathing

I tried updating it to WP:DAB style but I got reverted. Can you use your magic there and explain to the user why we should follow MOS:DP and such? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

... and Mukuro needs a touch-up. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Check out the newly made Yomi (disambiguation). I think it's supposed to be a Japanese surname but I'm not certain. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Since it's not listing (two-named) people with the surname, I don't think it's a surname page. I tweaked the other two. -- JHunterJ 23:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't a redirect supposed to be utilised for the page Water breathing? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What redirect are you referring to? -- JHunterJ 11:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Here, why did you resort to piping? I was thinking a redirect like Waterbreathing (ability) would be better since the guideline prefers it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Piping is avoided in the "entry link". Piping is no problem in the description links in cases where the entry doesn't have an article of its own (no link or redlink). WP:MOSDAB#Piping: "Use piping if you are linking to an anchor point on the target page." and "If a word in the description is linked (an unusual occurrence), you may use piping in that link." The redirect would be acceptable too, but it's not mandatory. -- JHunterJ 16:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like Goki needs some fixin'. By the way, are you honestly ok with me bothering you like this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

...and the newly made dab Rando. I was unsure if I should have used a redirect for the manga artist there. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I'm thinking that you're gaining experience or whatever so that you'll feel comfortable making all kinds of disambig cleanups yourself. Rando looks like it has only one "real" target plus a name-holder. I would probably redirect Rando to the character section and put a note that Rando redirect there, if you're looking for Rando Ayamine, see Rando Ayamine. -- JHunterJ 17:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I initially thought about having Rando redirect to the YYH character but there was a discussion on WP:HAT saying that dab pages should be made for cases like these (see the "Pichu" arguement on WT:HAT). Aside from those two I put on the page, articles which are Rando-related but are non-existent are: Award-winning director John Rando, Louis Rando from The Furor, biologist Juan Carlos Rando, and many others. What can you do to help? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If there's no existent articles that mention them, they don't need to be dabbed (yet). -- JHunterJ 00:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I corrected Goki, how is it looking? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Goki looks good. -- JHunterJ 00:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

General question on related groups of dab pages

I have a sort of general policy question. (Although perhaps it would be better addressed at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. If so, let me know, and I'll ask there.) Anyway, here it is: It seems that as a general rule all close variants of an ambiguous term are handled on a single page--that is, the dab page Foo would cover things called Foo, Foos, The Foo, and The Foos. But I've looked around and, although there have been some discussions, there doesn't seem to be a firm policy on this issue. So we also have (using examples I've cleaned up) groups like Kid, Kids, and The Kid, and Outsider, The Outsider, and The Outsiders. The problem with groups like these is what happens to something called, for example, The Kids? Does it go on the Kids page? Or the The Kid page? I've already collapsed one of these groups, merging entries from The Boy and The Boys into Boy (disambiguation), and no one had a heart attack over it (not so far, at least). But I thought I should seek some advice before going any further. Should the other groups be merged? Should I reverse the merge I already did with the Boy pages? Your thoughts? ShelfSkewed Talk 20:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a firm policy. Usually pluralization or the addition of an article like "The" or "A" is handled on a single page, but if that gets unwieldy or for any other consensual reason, they may remain separate. The Eagle springs to mind, as does Heroes. If they are split, each to "See also" the other(s). Any merger can be done boldly, as you've done, or through a proposal and discussion (WP:MM). I would speculate that merging the Heroes page to the Hero (disambiguation) page without discussion would be more reckless than bold. :-) -- JHunterJ 00:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

So case-by-case, and proceed with caution, then. I still wonder what to do about The Kids and Outsiders, but I guess there's no harm if they end up on either page, or both. Congrats on the adminship, by the way. Well deserved. --ShelfSkewed Talk 01:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! As for me, I'd probably comine Kid and Kids while leaving The Kid separate (and moving the list of nickname holders down). If The Outsiders remains separate (which looks okay, given the length), I'd still advocate for redirecting Outsiders to Outsider and moving the entries on The Outsiders that don't have the "The" to the Outsider page. -- JHunterJ 11:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I am not understanding

I think one of the things I am having trouble with concerning your edit is that you are citing MOS and MOSDAB, and I am not seeing the application of them to the HP thing. Maybe you could explain it to me, as well as the affected redirects. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What are the affected redirects? The redirect in particular is HP, which should be linked just like that as the base name primary meaning of the dab topic. Was there another redirect I alluded to? I don't remember another. -- JHunterJ 00:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I see this problem escalating out of control, J. If you are doing what I think you are doing, then I think I am right to come down hard on you like I am doing. Maybe if you could assure me somehow that you aren't trying to end-run around the current state of dab to slip HP in, I could just assume I am jumping at shadows. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been assuring you, and I'm the one who last removed HP from the dab [1]. It appears you're too entrenched in your opposition, and you've become more uncivil as a result. Yes, I think that "HP" should be mentioned on Harry Potter, and if it eventually is, yes, I think that "Harry Potter" should be included on the disambiguation. There is nothing that warrants being a dick (or "coming down hard") about that, and there's no end-run in progress, just the usual use of Talk pages to identify consensus. From my vantage point, it appears that you are trying to cow other editors from forming a consensus that disagrees with your foregone conclusion. -- JHunterJ 01:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

And the way I am seeing it, you are essentially saying that you don't like the answer you were given and are going elsewhere to perhaps canvass for a different one. Thank you for admitting to what I consider to be pretty sneaky, and not in a good way. If my reaction to what seems underhanded is dickish, then please consider if the tables were reversed. As for cowing, i am not too good at that. If calling revealing underlying behavior is being a dick, then I guess I am. My conclusion isn't foregone, though. I gave you several opportunities to change it. You simply failed to do so. I would ask that you refrain from wikicanvassing, please. It's lowbrow, and sidesteps the consensus already formed in the DAB. If you disagree with it, you are welcome to try and change it within the article. You are also welcome to try and seek dispute resolution. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the tables are reversed -- we're both stating our positions on both Talk pages. The difference is that you misinterpret it as canvassing, and I see it as discussing the content of two pages on those two pages' Talk pages. So, I'll repeat, since there is not (and never has been) anything sneaky about it: I will continue to post points relevant to Harry Potter on Talk:Harry Potter. -- JHunterJ 02:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Rando

Welcome back! I kind of needed your help on another Buu dispute recently. Well my main point is, how's the Rando page looking? Should a redirect be utilised for the manga artist listed there? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Rando looks the same: one name-holder who doesn't need to be dabbed; I would probably redirect Rando to the character section and put a note that Rando redirect there, if you're looking for Rando Ayamine, see Rando Ayamine. -- JHunterJ 01:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you see the latest discussion on WP:HN? Most of us thought that we should make disambiguation pages for even two things using a similar name. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

So the disambiguation page can be moved to Rando (disambiguation), Rando (YuYu Hakusho) can be moved Rando, and a hatnote added that points to Rando Ayamine. That will leave the disambiguation page an orphan. -- JHunterJ 11:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe Dr. Mario needs disambig style repairs also. I'll take care of the use of redirects after you correct this one. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Style repairs applied. -- JHunterJ 01:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you be perturbed if I gave you a long list of dab pages that need disambig style repair? For a long time, I have noticed a whole lot of them need correcting. Tien is yet another. What do you say about this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

For a long list, you can tag them {{disambig-cleanup}} instead of {{disambig}}, and that way all editors interested in dab cleanup will see them. -- JHunterJ 11:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Malplaced dab page?

I hope you enjoyed your Wikibreak, but no rest for the weary: Lucky number is an article about a mathematical concept, the dab page is at Lucky number (disambiguation), and Lucky Number (both words capped) is a redirect to the dab page. Is this right? Also, I haven't cleaned up the dab page yet. What would you do with the entry "A number that is claimed to bring to good fortune to a person. See Numerology"? It seems like a dict def entry, but it also seems like a reasonable thing that a user might be looking for if they search "lucky number", and there's no Wiktionary entry for it.--ShelfSkewed Talk 03:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The differentiation of article by capital letters is contentious. I have no problem with different caps pointing to different things, but Iron maiden vs. Iron Maiden has been a tempest in a teapot lately. But having a cpaitalization-difference point to a (disambiguation) page isn't necessarily malplaced. I prefer the setup you described to one where the dab is at Lucky Number and the Lucky number article has a hatnote to Lucky Number for other uses. Numerology mentions only "lucky number combinations" and that in reference to Chinese numerology, so I might rework it as "Lucky number combination, an element of [[Numerology#Chinese numerology|Chinese numerology]]". -- JHunterJ 11:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Pipelinks on dabs

Re: ACM: I think you and I are interpretating the guidelines differently. Let's figure this out. The way I read the guidelines, they don't support what you're trying to do with the dab page, leaving a redirect. WP:MOSDAB says: "...a link to a redirect term will sometimes be preferred to a direct link, if the redirect term contains the disambiguation title and the redirect target does not..." But what's happening on ACM is that the redirect term contains the disambiguation title, the redirect target does not, but by piping the link it can be smoothly integrated with no ambiguity. Perhaps you are suggesting that the "no changing a page title with piping" rule applies? I don't think it should in this case--that guideline is intended to preserve parenthetical qualifiers that distinguish article titles, and the piping rule is breakable for plenty of good reasons, such as, for example, to italicize major work titles. Robert K S 18:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, no piping to change a page title applies. Linking to a redirect that matches the dab term is preferable to linking to the eventual target directly, that's what the guidelines are saying: "This guidance to avoid piping means that a link to a redirect term will sometimes be preferred to a direct link, if the redirect term contains the disambiguation title and the redirect target does not."-- JHunterJ 18:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Westinghouse

Wikipedia has nothing currently to say on Westinghouse Lighting Corporation, but could (some day) - though I don't have the resources to write the article. I thought it was significant, and encyclopedia-worthy, that there is yet another company carrying on business under the Westinghouse name. By mentioning it on the disambig page, the encyclopedia user is alerted to this fact. There is no article List of Westighouse licensees which would serve the same purpose as the disambiguation page. At least listing the company here on the disambig page shows another use of "Westinghouse" which so far the Wikipedia has not had a chance to describe. I thought disambiguation pages were supposed to explain alternative uses of the topic, even if there is currently no article for every possible usage. I now invoke the "Pokemon" defense and retire. --Wtshymanski 20:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are not meant as explanatory articles; disambiguation pages disambiguate existing Wikipedia articles. They do not list possible future Wikipedia articles or serve to alert the encyclopedia reader of things other than Wikipedia articles. I am unfamiliar with the Pokemon defense with regard to disambiguation pages. -- JHunterJ 20:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Iron maiden

Hey. Sorry for the late reply. I reverted the anon edit because the page was supposed to be fully protected for a month, and because all G6 moves should be pretty uncontroversial. I personally think that, besides fixing the malplaced dab page problem, moving iron maiden (disambiguation) to iron maiden would be a good compromise because that was the status quo before all the edit warring began. However, I wouldn't do the move without RM or some sort of discussion because that could escalate the dispute. The protection expires soon, so I'd just wait and see if anyone cares anymore. Prolog 06:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

RFK

Hey JHunterJ, can you correct the hatlink(s) at Robert F. Kennedy? There's something wrong there but I can't quite figure it out. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Are the ones at Bobby (2006 film) needed also? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The hatnotes on Robert F. Kennedy look okay; the film one is iffy (are people looking for the film typing in "RFK" or "Robert Kennedy"?) and could use the {{for}} template, but it's not a big deal. The ones are Bobby (2006 film) appear to be unneeded. -- JHunterJ 09:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick comment, Kazuma is a disambig or surname page? And is Yusuke a Japanese name or Japanese given name? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Kazuma is a dab. Yusuke looks like a dab also, so the given-name holders should be moved to the end, or the name-holder list and the dab list should be split into two pages (either base name dab and (name), or base name name and (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ 03:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Again I've been reverted on Buu and the page was protected so I wouldn't touch it. What to do? Request unprotection? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 09:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm at a great loss. Almost... speechless. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 10:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you able to read all of this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 10:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked you a question back at the Buu discussion. BTW, is deletion encouraged for a redirect like Roumieu (disambiguation) or did you delete it with another motive? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Since Roumieu is a surname-holder list and not a "real" dab page, the orphan dab redirect seemed unhelpful. -- JHunterJ 10:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

CJKV dab pages

Hello, JHunterJ. Congratulations on becoming an admin!

Remember the dab 文 we worked on? I believe there are more CJKV characters needing disambiguation.

I went ahead and created dab pages for 財閥, 琵琶, 七夕, & 東北大學. But I have a whole list of CJKV scenarios at User:Endroit/Chinese characters. Some of these Chinese characters can be simply redirected, while others need disambiguation. (There are some potentially controversial ones as well).

Can you please help me as I go through this list? And if there's a way to start a wiki project based on this, I'd prefer that as well. The more input we get from experienced editors, the better it will be. Since I want to do this right, it will be much appreciated if you can help.--Endroit 02:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Easy stuff first: see Wikipedia:WikiProject#Creating and maintaining for starting a WikiProject. I'd be happy to sign up -- I'm currently working my way through the Malplaced dab pages list, but can give it more attention after that. I'll go ahead and take a look at the ones you've linked above though. -- JHunterJ 11:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I'll need about a week to go through Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide and the other material found in the above link. The new project will be about "CJKV dab pages", and at this time, I anticipate WP:WPDAB to be the main "parent" project, in addition to the 4 language projects WP:ZH, WP:JA, WP:KO, and WP:VIET.--Endroit 17:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Global village

The Global village dab page is a mess. I just tagged it with a project tag on the talk page, but I wanted to let you know about it. If you take a look at the edit history, you'll notice that editors have been monkeying around with it for some time. I think that the Global village (disambiguation) page should be restored, and the primary topic pointed to Global village (Internet). —Viriditas | Talk 01:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up the dab; primary topicness should be brought up on Talk:Global village. -- JHunterJ 03:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've got another one if you are interested: John Steele. —Viriditas | Talk 13:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, again! —Viriditas | Talk 12:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Disambi Help

Please check the history of:

Adrian Peterson

And tell me what you think. Should it go direct to Adrian L., or to the disambiguation page? Thanks. ~ WikiDon 18:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It should point to Adrian L. as the primary topic. -- JHunterJ 11:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Magog

Great. Could you weigh in? I can see this coming to something of a stalemate. I'm mostly arguing from the standpoint of primary use; he seems to be more concerned with nuanced differences in the subject and the current state of the articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

MS (disambiguation)

Your edit here has reverted the changes I have made. I must say I find it quite offensive and frustrating since I have taken the time to explain every edit in details. I have even placed a reference to all the links on the talk:MS (disambiguation) discussion page along with my explanations. If you feel that there is no concensus, please voice your "discusion" on that talk:MS (disambiguation) prior to reverting my Good faith edits. And preferably in a civil manner which explain and covers the issue at hand. The issue at hand, if you have not had the time to read my edit summaries or the talk page is wikipedia's policy concerning Original Research. Articles in the MS disambiguation, which I removed, did not have proper citations or verifiable information. If you have addressed this issue, I will gladly welcome you putting back the information, otherwise I feel strongly that this information should be excluded we will require dispute resolution or a third voice. In the mean under wikipedia's policy WP:OR, point number 3, (which is a consensus agreed upon by most wikipedians and supported by almost all administrators), I am reverting the change you made. WP:OR states "Our verifiability policy (V) demands that information and notable views presented in articles be drawn from appropriate, reliable sources." If you disagree with this I ask that you please follow my afformentioned recommendation by providing proper citition within the related article or that we start the process for mediation or dispute resolution. p.s.: I am still quite offended by your edit, and better explanation would be greatly appreciated since it appears to contradict the above wikipedia official policy. Thank you and I hope we can work on building a better wikipedia. --CyclePat 19:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You have mistaken a disambiguation page for an article. Disambiguation pages are not articles. There is no reason to take offense a the attempt to explain that. The presence of entries on the dab indicates that the linked article addresses the use of the dab phrase. You are removing articles which merit inclusion, and if you disagree with their inclusion, you should discuss the removal of those uses from the linked articles, but until they are removed from the linked articles, the dab page should continue to disambiguate them. -- JHunterJ 19:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This defies general concensus as elaborated at WP:OR, if you wish to discuss this in further details I suggest you ask your questions on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. In the mean time, though the finding and information is interesting, quite an honorable attempt to build a good dab page, I fear the information does not meet wikipedia's standards and policy. I do not agree at all with you philosophy that wikipedia's rule do not apply to DAB and put it to you that there is nothing within these policies that excludes a DAB. If you have any issues with these policy I suggest you bring it up on there related discussion page. If you require further input, or wish to have a third opinion we could battle this out at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Also, it is my understanding that it is customary to reply in one location, preferably, since this pertains to the MS (disambiguation) page it should be there. --CyclePat 20:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Then why are you replying here? If you continue to disagree with what you feel is OR on multiple articles, I continue to suggest you bring it up on their talk pages instead of trying to make the dab page the arbiter. -- JHunterJ 20:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

OHIO

I take exception to your removal of Ohio (down by the) from the Ohio disambiguation page. Ohio, written in 1920 by Olman & Yellen was legally titled "Ohio" but is frequently misnamed Down by the Ohio because the lyrics read Down by the Ohio. --BuffaloBob 19:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC) [2]

Why do you take exception to my removal of it, when the information you've added here doesn't appear on Jack Yellen? Seems like it would be more productive to correct the Jack Yellen article rather than taking exception to my ignorance of the legal titles of songs written in 1920. -- JHunterJ 20:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

B.U.U., and other things

Go ahead and delete B.U.U., guess we lose the acronym. Also, though I tagged it, can you clean up Tien a bit more? And I'm thinking Byakuya is a disambiguation, correct me if I'm wrong though. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted the redirect; and the two dabs look good now. -- JHunterJ 12:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm unable to place a {{talkarchive}} on Talk:Dragon Ball Z/Archive 3 because of some spam blocker. What to do? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I "nowiki"ed the spam link and it let me save it. -- JHunterJ 22:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. There's a stubborn user not allowing me to use WP:MOSDAB formatting on Byakuya. Since you're used to dealing with this, could you help? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Did I do this right? To me, it looks like it needs more cleanup. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't have the redlinks, but otherwise it looks acceptable. -- JHunterJ 04:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

And I just warned Boffob about the WP:Three revert rule because he has reverted a third time, I'll report him to WP:AN3RR if he does so once more. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Didn't think that there would be an edit war on Byakuya, now the page does not follow format and may be deleted, which goes against a discussion which occurred at WP:HN. Do you know of someone or something else that can support our views and save the page? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Byakuya could use your disambig-style touch-up, hopefully, they won't fight against WP:DAB too. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What discussion does it go against? If there's a primary topic for Byakuya (which it seems Byakuya (InuYasha) may be, then the dab page is not needed. -- -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Look for the Pichu dab proposition at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#Hatnotes above everything. It's exactly the reason why I created Goki and others. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should start ignoring MOS:DP from now on and just pipe everything. I'm really tired of dealing with this, we're trying to make things easier yet there's constant opposition. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the guideline is not going to get you your way. Quite the opposite in fact. Consider the possibility that when multiple people disagree with you, you just might be in the wrong. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what are we talking about again? Thought most were against redirects so the idiom "If you can't beat 'em, (join 'em)!" would apply in this case. The thing is, I'm not sure what WP:MOS:DP#Piping is referencing (again). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If you'd stop being so literal in everything you do, this would be a hell of a lot easier on everyone. Look, this isn't a terribly difficult thing to understand. You don't need to use a redirect when there's a specific article for the specific subject. Byakuya Kuchiki disambiguates itself. The disambiguation title (or abbreviation) is already there. In the case of sections, sure, use redirects, but what you're doing is wholly unnecessary. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to use User talk:Someguy0830 and User talk:Sesshomaru for conversations. Sesshomaru, "Hatnotes above everything" doesn't seem to indicate that the primary topic for Byakuya should not be at the base name. Someguy0830, "don't need to use" and "cannot create and use" are two different things. Another editor (Sesshomaru) has created a redirect for use, and that use is not contrary to any guidelines I'm aware of, and is arguably more in line with some of the guidelines I am aware of (WP:MOSDAB). If the dab page does not get deleted, there would be no reason to replace Byakuya (Bleach) with Byakuya Kuchiki. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Adrian Peterson

is messed up again, and I can't undo it. Admin powers are required. --Brewcrewer 08:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. -- JHunterJ 12:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

1) It's messed up again (yes, I'm continuing this section from a month ago).

2) Another page requires admin powers. "McGowan" redirects to McGowan (disambiguation) where there are a few entries, one of them a link to McGowan (surname). McGowan (surname) includes a list of around twenty links to WP articles. Most people, when entering "McGowan" are looking for someone on that list. I want to move McGowan (surname) to McGowan, and leave a hatnote on top of the page directing people to the dab page. I can't do that, however, because the page already exists (it redirects to McGowan (disambiguation)). So if I didn't confuse you, can you do the move for me? best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not messed up, but it's solved in a different way. The dab is at the base name, instead of the base name redirecting somewhere else. It looks like the discussion is leaning toward no primary topic now. I fixed up McGowan et al. BTW, to number paragraphs, you can use # (instead of or in combination with * and : for bullets and indentation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I understoood that Peterson went to a dab, and I considered that "messed up." But concensus is consensus, I guess. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: WikiProject:CJKV disambiguation pages

I have submitted my proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#CJKV disambiguation pages. If that entry looks OK to you, I'll go invite some prospective members. Also, it will be greatly appreciated if you can help lead the project (or lead it outright). Please give it some thought.--Endroit (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I noted the possibility of making it a task force too, but yes, it looks fine. I am unfamiliar with project leadership roles and responsibilities, so I am actively disinterested in leading it outright, but we can see what lead help there is to be given. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That link you showed me, Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces, was very helpful. Making this a task force reduces the bureacratic overhead for us... That's good, because it allows us to concentrate on other things!

I'll find more people from the 4 language projects, to sign up now. JHunterJ, can you find more people from Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation to sign up?--Endroit (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Goku (disambiguation)

I styled the page to look like Someguy's edit to Goki. What are your thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Goku (disambiguation) differs from Goki in that there is a primary topic Goku. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What about my edit to Tien? Perhaps I should change it back before I get yelled at. Does the DB page need cleanup BTW? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Tien looks fine. DB does need cleanup, yes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Emo (disambiguation)

Hello. Just drawing a disambiguation-related issue to your attention, since you're an experienced editor in this area. An editor has been edit-warring to add a dictionary definition with a link to Wiktionary on the Emo (disambiguation) page. I've left a note on the user's talk page explaining my take on things – it looks to me like an inappropriate addition to the page but judging by a recent edit summary things may be on the verge of getting uncivil. I'd appreciate it if you can look into the issue and offer a third opinion, if you feel it's warranted. Regards. --Muchness (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's over the verge. I cleaned up the dab page further, and added it to my watch list. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this, it's appreciated. --Muchness (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

MS

Please bear in mind the 3 rv rule which you are in danger of breaking. I am trying to improve this article and have at each stage taken your comments into consideration in my next edit whereas your last four edits have been simply to revert mine. Please try to be more cooperative and build on my edits rather than continuing with a destructive approach. Abtract (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Mine have not all been simple reverts. You are in as much "danger" of 3RR violation as I am, except that I was reverting to the consensus view that had already been discussed. Please try to be more cooperative and build consensus per WP:BRD, as requested. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

At what point did you build on my edit? Abtract (talk) 09:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This edit was not a simple revert, for instance. At what point did you read WP:MOSDAB#Order of entries and WP:BRD? Rather than using the dab page itself as your laboratory for your proposed change iterations, you should have taken it to just the Talk page after the first revert. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Metrology - yeah you are right, I just got carried away with discovering the word. :) Abtract (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Last Exit

Hi--I'm having a little issue with the dab page Last Exit (Edit history). Am I in danger of violating WP:3RR if I revert edits that clearly violate MOS:DAB--changing the display of the link, more than one blue link? I would also point out that the other editor is probably the producer of the film whose entry is in dispute, as seems clear from the info at Image:LastExit_Nigel.jpg, so her edits are also COI. As always, any help or advice...--ShelfSkewed Talk 16:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, three reverts is three reverts. Better plan is to ask for other input (like you did here). Or see WP:DISPUTE for other avenues. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look & tweaking the page. I have no idea why I left those band links piped--that was weird. Best --ShelfSkewed Talk 17:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Underground Ocean

Underground Ocean is a nominal dab page with nothing to disambiguate: There are no articles by this title, none of the linked pages mention this phrase, and the only article that links to it is Ocean, where it appears only in the See also list. I looked for something to redirect it to--hydrography, subsurface flow, etc--but couldn't find anything appropriate. Any thoughts? --ShelfSkewed Talk 05:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit history shows it was created as an article. I made it an article again, and then made it a redirect to the current article, Beijing Anomaly. -- JHunterJ 12:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You know, if you keep humbling me by coming up with simple, sensible solutions like that, I'm going to stop asking questions. Just kidding--that's exactly why I ask: To learn. Someday, I will snatch that pebble from your hand... --ShelfSkewed Talk 14:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Kaal

Here's another one I'm not sure what to do with: The dab page Kaal used to be the article for the Bollywood film. About a year ago, an editor created Kaal (2005 film) by copying & pasting the Kaal article—which in effect split the edit history for the film article—then turned Kaal into a dab page. It seems to me the film ought to be returned to Kaal—since most of its edit history is still there, and it's the only WP article using that title—with a hatnote to the TV station KAAL (and possibly to the Star Wars planet, though it's pretty obscure: mentioned in one section of List of minor Star Wars characters). But I can't just cut & paste Kaal (2005 film), because that would leave behind the edit history. Is there any way to put the film back at Kaal and merge the edit histories to restore continuity? Or should Kaal remain a harmless 2-article dab page and the film left where it is (or, better, moved to Kaal (film))?--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good one. I used my administrator's mop to put the edit histories back in the right places. Thanks for pointing it out. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That's some mop! --ShelfSkewed Talk 03:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on my page

Thanks for catching it. I've since reported the user for pattern vandalism. Again, thanks - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Intentional links to disambiguation pages

You undid a few of my edits, saying "(disambiguation) redirects are preferred for intentional links to dabs)". Example, [3] (at the bottom, under "See also"). (The compounded edits were definitely good work.)

Users get frustrated when everything they do breaks some obscure rule.

You did not misconstrue. (Some do.) I actually found the obscure rule. However, I think the rule needs discussing.

Background: There's often a tug of war, on whether a page like "Kingston" should discuss the capital of Jamaica and have a hatnote linking to "Kingston (disambiguation)" OR all "Kingston"s should be non-primary. Currently, all "Kingston"s are non-primary. That points to another decision, a global one related to all similar situations. We could make "Kingston (disambiguation)" the main disambiguation page, and make "Kingston" redirect there. (Possibly half of the other-language Wikipedias do it that way. Have a look around the language links from a few dab pages.) But EN does it a specific way (which I happen to like). "Kingston" is the disambiguation page. "Kingston (disambiguation)" shouldn't be necessary, except to prevent breaking of old links, or the new use found for it.

Here's the rule, as it exists today:

Links that deliberately point to generic topic disambiguation pages should use an unambiguous "(disambiguation)" link instead, to assist in distinguishing accidental links. In turn, the "(disambiguation)" page will redirect to the generic topic page.

The next paragraph gives an example of using the above rule, and in the process introduces an additional rule for Redirect pages.

For example, the specific topic Tables (board game) links to Table (disambiguation), a redirect to Table with the template {{R to disambiguation page}}. Table is a generic topic disambiguation page. -Wikipedia->Disambiguation->Disambiguation pages->Page naming conventions->Generic topic

The problem is clear. Links to disambiguation pages or not desirable. BUT, because EN decided to use disambiguation pages without " (disambiguation)" in the name, it's hard to tell whether a link to a disambiguation page is intentional. The current solution is THREE kluges. Kluge 1: EVERY intentional link must point to "Kingston (disambiguation)". Kluge 2: The otherwise unnecessary "Kingston (disambiguation)" page is created. "Kingston (disambiguation)" ideally is the ONLY link to "Kingston". However, by linking there at all, it violates kluge 1. Kluge 3: "Kingston (disambiguation)" adds the new special new tag {{R to disambiguation page}}, so that the violation of Kluge 1 is not flagged as a problem.

It's hard to think of a better solution. However, it is tempting to consider, because the current solution sucks.

The current three-kluge solution sucks because the page name is neat, but the required links to that page use an ugly name and go through a redirect. "We" have made it proper to link to a (permanent) redirect page! Every time that happens, we create the likelihood of multiple helpful edits bypassing the redirects and then being reverted, every day, forever. Reverts frustrate. And the root of it all is those non-obvious rules.

Status quo is: (dab page titles are neat; links to them are ugly AND go through kluged redirect pages.) The ways out are not easy. 1) Go back to having every disambiguation page include " (disambiguation)" in the name, so that there is no redirect to bypass. (Makes uglier dab page titles and keeps the links ugly. Page with neat name redirects to dab page.) 2) Make a new style of link that shows that the link to the disambiguation is intentional. Pages like "Kingston (disambiguation)" could all be deleted. (Elaborate; keeps pretty dab page titles; makes links to them prettier; slightly uglier wikicode for those links.) 3) Change the page finder function so that following a link to "Kingston (disambiguation)" silently redirects to "Kingston" whenever "Kingston (disambiguation)" does not exist. Pages like "Kingston (disambiguation)" could all be deleted. (Keeps dab page titles neat; keeps links to them ugly but in wikicode more understandable.) I think #2 and #3 here have big potential.

Ways of reducing misguided edits in the current solution include: making sure that the {{R to disambiguation page}} causes a message to be displayed on the extra disambiguation page. -Whiner01 (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the status quo is a problem. Intentional links to disambiguation pages are not ugly, and redirects are not kludges. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course a redirect is not a kluge. (I am not an idiot.) The kluges speak for themselves. Having "Kingston (disambiguation)" link to "Kingston" IS a kluge. Insisting that all links targeting "Kingston" must instead link to "Kingston (disambiguation)" so that WP knows that they "mean it" IS a kluge. Requiring that "Kingston (disambiguation)", when, as-required, redirecting to "Kingston" (the real disambiguation page), include a special template to prevent the "only" link to "Kingston" from being flagged as an accidental link to a disambiguation page IS a kluge. The amount of explanation required, and the number of contradictions clearly mark these as kluges. To say that this trio of kluges is not a kluge would merely be Kluge Denial.

Why is there never a shortage of defenders of the status quo? People should be able to admit that deficiencies might actually exist, and that other approaches might have advantages that need to be considered. (When I get this discussion right, I'll have to figure out where to post a re-organized version.)

Sorry I forgot to define "ugly". It basically refers to a form that has been deprecated, presumably for appearance sake. I use the term semi-sarcastically, which can be confusing, even to me. I'm not so sure that the page titles are ugly -- "ugly" stands in for "using the disused style which has been deprecated apparently because someone thinks it's unstylish".

Anyway, here is the parent of the aformentioned kluges:

A disambiguation page is usually named after the generic topic (e.g. "Term XYZ"). "Term XYZ (disambiguation)" is not the mandatory name for a disambiguation page, and is only used when there is a primary topic for the title "Term XYZ". It is acceptable, on the other hand, to create a page at "Term XYZ (disambiguation)" that redirects to the disambiguation page at "Term XYZ". This type of redirect can be used to indicate deliberate links to the disambiguation page. -Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page naming conventions

Summarizing, ' "Term XYZ (disambiguation)" is ... only used when there is a primary topic for the title "Term XYZ".' Thus, (implicitly of course -- not the way to direct anything), "Term XYZ" is the preferred name for the disambiguation page when there is NO primary topic. Now, WHY is that the intent? The effect is, Kingston takes you directly to a page called "Kingston", which is the disambiguation page, instead of redirecting you to a page called "Kingston (disambiguation)". The only possible motivation for this approach is STYLE -- someone clearly thought that a page titled "Kingston (disambiguation)" is UGLY, whereas "Kingston" is cool, pretty, stylish, or whatever. The problem is, preferring disambiguation pages named without " (disambiguation)" in the name has ramifications, most of them undesirable.

Undesirable ramifications: 1) It is not evident from the page title that the page is a disambiguation page. People constantly need reminding that disambiguation pages are NOT articles. If the page title included " (disambiguation)", then those REVERT-reminders should happen less often. Policies that provoke reverts are not good. 2) It is not evident from an intentional link to a disambiguation page (e.g., "Kingston") that the link is intentional. A permanent work-around has been set up that requires a link to "Kingston (disambiguation)" -- a link that is NOT the name of the destination page -- a link that exactly IS the same UGLY name that was intentionally NOT given to the disambiguation page, MERELY to make it clear that the link was "intentional".

Everything about these ramifications seems to indicate that the title of every disambiguation page really should include " (disambiguation)" in the title. Possibly, "Term XYZ (disambiguation)" really should be the mandatory name!. The only real objection would be that the page titles become ugly (i.e., un-stylish, un-cool). It would remove all of the other problems: the link would always point to the target; it would always be obvious that a link to disambiguation is intentional; the title of a disambiguation page would always unambiguously remind the editor that it is a disambiguation page.

I checked the other-language links. I misstated previously about other-language pages. (Sorry.) The other-language pages that "Kingston" (disambiguation) links to mostly omit the " (disambiguation)" when possible (br, da, de, fi, fr, ja, kr, nl, no, po, ru, sk, sl, sw, uk). Several links lead to a page with the equivalent of " (disambiguation)" in the name, but that is because "Kingston" is a primary topic (always Kingston, Jamaica) (af, it, pt, sv). The one real exception is es, where "Kingston (desambiguación)" is the dab even though there is no primary! However, that is not necessarily typical in es.

A better test case would be "Richmond" (disambiguation), for which all 19 foreign pages are dab, but none of them includes the equivalent of " (disambiguation)" in the name. Interestingly, every one of them links back to "Richmond" in the en Wikipedia -- not "Richmond (disambiguation)" as recommended/required. (Maybe they didn't read the en MoS.) I'm not going to edit those links, because currently they are correct, MoS notwithstanding. A kluge is a kluge is a kluge. It can never be RIGHT to make it WRONG to link to a page by its correct title. The link is wrong, or the page title is wrong. -Whiner01 (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

{{R to disambiguation page}} not functioning as intended

(As mentioned in the previous topic,) it is a good idea to make the {{R to disambiguation page}} template display an informative message on any (disambiguation) page where it is used. In fact, the template obviously intends to display such a message.

The problem is, the helpful message is NOT displayed when the {{R to disambiguation page}} tag appears after the #REDIRECT link. It is as if parsing stops as soon as the #REDIRECT link is processed. (When viewing the redirect page with redirects disabled, obviously.)

If the {{R to disambiguation page}} tag appears BEFORE the #REDIRECT link, then the helpful message is displayed but the REDIRECT is broken. (When visiting the redirect page with redirects enabled, obviously.)

I could not get the message to display and the redirect to work in the same version of the page. (See futile series of attempts at [4].) Note, the redirect page "Table (disambiguation)" is referenced by the EXAMPLE! Note, sometimes the template message is displayed while previewing edits, but then is gone when actually viewing the revised page.

Possible solutions include: 1) Repair the processing of #REDIRECT or {{R to disambiguation page}} so that the helpful message actually appears. -Whiner01 (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The {{R to disambiguation page}} is not intended to display a message to the user in the "normal" case where a reader clicks through an intentional link to a disambiguation page. It is visible if the reader then clicks back from the "redirected from" message on the destination page. It's more there for automated processing and for possible collection of offline Wikipedia versions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fully aware that "The {{R to disambiguation page}} is not intended to display a message to the user in the "normal" case...", as I'm not an idiot. I'm not discussing what the template is "more there" for. The template clearly is ALSO intended to display a message when the page is viewed on the click-back, but that intention is not functioning. Where can I report this definite malfunction to someone who cares? -Whiner01 (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry -- I hadn't noticed that the message on the template page wasn't showing up on the redirects. Template talk:R to disambiguation page would be a good place to start, I suppose. -- JHunterJ 02:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Debugging templates is a little beyond me. I looked and I didn't see any possibility of a problem within {{R to disambiguation page}}. And it might be a software problem inside MediaWiki, something none of us editors has control over. (Well, I could could learn PHP and then start browsing the Open Source of this Free Software (deep voodoo), but then how to test or incorporate the patch?)

Good idea. I've posted a rewrite of this to Template talk:R to disambiguation page

Note: I initially posted "{{R to disambiguation page}} not functioning as intended" here, in part to underscore the klugiosity of the "Intentional links to disambiguation pages" kluges (previous section). After they klugified the linking process so thoroughly, it's only natural that one of their kluge-upon-kluge band-aids doesn't even do what it's kluged up to. -Whiner01 (talk) 07:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Calvert (name)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Calvert (name), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Calvert. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hunter (disambiguation)

Thanks for de-piping de-article, and making me chuckle at that exacting edit summary. I'm an active member of WP:DPL and I know the MoS (piping) rule. My bad. Working too fast. Good catch. (shuffling away sheepishly with hands in pockets, kicking pebbles) .... Keeper | 76 16:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		You do great work. (I put the pipe in there on purpose. Hee hee.) I bow. Keeper | 76 16:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar! Yeah, I don't know why people lists don't get article ("British guy" instead of "a British guy"), but here we are. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

New guidelines for CJKV disambiguation pages

Hi JHunterJ,

I just proposed new guidelines at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#New guidelines for CJKV disambiguation pages. Please discuss there, and make any necessary changes.

A task force may also eventually be created; but I believe we need more support from the primarily Chinese-article editors. Thank you for your help.--Endroit (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

MS (disambiguation)

You have now reverted 3 times and not answered my points on the talk page. You are surely aware of the 3rv rule and therefore know you are in danger of being blocked if you do it again. I have been there and I know the temptation; I am trying to improve the page and I am not against microsoft so let's cooperate to find the best wayAbtract (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to fix your third or fourth or fifth revert, which meant that I followed your 3RR violation with my own (along with simple responses on the talk page). "Let's cooperate" is usually done on the talk page alone, not by pursuing an edit war in the mainspace. See WP:BRD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I made my initial edit and reverted your 3 rv (without expanation) with 3 of my own ... in addition I have put about 5 times as much discussion on the talk page as you and have had nothing but the most cursory of replies (bordering on the rude) from you. I am trying to improve this page whereas you have responded in a very "this is my page bugger off" manner. Abtract (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Funny. It looked like you were stomping around in a very "this is how I want the page to be changed bugger off" manner, since you continued to edit contrary to WP:MOSDAB rather than discuss the proposed changes to find out why they are contrary to consensus. Typing in 5 times as much hard-to-read text on the talk while continuing to make changes without consensus is not helpful. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have just notice that you are an admin. Wow again! I am amazed and somewhat disappointed. Abtract (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If only you were somewhat more polite as well... -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• I draw your attention to this edit. As an admin you should know better! Abtract (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  And as an editor you should stop making so many disruptive edits. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• In order to help you in your efforts to make a point, can I point out that MS (disease) could do with being created and redirected as could many others to be found on MS. :) Abtract (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  It's too late to point that out. I already pointed it out here. May I point out that creating redirects does not disrupt anything? -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

removal of deeper links on disambig pages

Hi, please do not remove useful deep links on disambig pages like you did here: [5]. Many people will be looking for specific subtopics when typing a broad term into the search box - like an episode list when only typing the series title. If you think there is some problem with the manual of style, please point this out. --134.93.199.65 (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me which manual of style suggests using these so-called "deep links". I was editing in alignment with WP:MOSDAB, which says do not link to things that just happen to have the dab phrase in the title. I believe the episode list is linked from the series article, which will serve the people you describe. -- 12:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, people could click through to the episode list. However, some people are not so lucky to have fast DSL lines and are happy to have one less slow loading Wikipedia page on their way to what they are searching. Also episode list links are often a little hidden on a series' page and this might turn down people searching for these on Wikipedia. --84.178.90.209 (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

And some people are using text-based browsers, yet Wikipedia continues to use images. Simply entering "heroes episodes" into the search box will help people looking for Heroes episodes encounter two fewer slow-loading Wikipedia pages on their way to what they are search for, and leaving off the unneeded text on the disambiguation page will help that page load faster for people looking for "heroes".-- JHunterJ (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

MS mess

Thanks for your note. Believe me, I am completely aware of your opinion on the matter, and thought you could use some support. I have no idea why people can't seem to quit messing with this page. The version you propose to go back to seems entirely reasonable to me and a vast improvement over what we have today. Perhaps when the smoke clears... SlackerMom (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Justice for All

I'll make sure to clean up disambiguation links in the future. Thanks for bringing it up. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely Maybe

Definitely Maybe used to be, and now redirects to, the article about the Oasis album, now at Definitely Maybe (album). The dab is Definitely Maybe (disambiguation). The Oasis album is by far the predominant use of this title, and it seems wrong to have Definitely Maybe sitting there as just a redirect. So, two possibilities: Move the album article back to Definitely Maybe (which I think I can do myself), or move the dab page to Definitely Maybe (which I think I can't). What do you recommend? And Merry Christmas! --ShelfSkewed Talk 06:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you! I'd recommend returning the album to the base name, which as you suspect you should be able to do yourself. I moved Definitely, Maybe (film) back to Definitely, Maybe as well and cleaned up the disambiguation page. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin Stone

Would it be possible to explain your obsession with the Benjamin Stone from Law & Order? I mean, I'm not all that experienced an editor, but I am at a loss to understand how you come to the conclusion that that Ben Stone is somehow the Ben Stone that most people would think of first, which is what I presume from both your move of the Law & Order character's page and your reordering of the disambig page. I have already reverted the disambig page, but am willing to discuss it if you have some enlightenment to offer; now I find that you've moved the page. Look, I offered an explaination for my actions in my edit summaries, I'd appreciate the courtesy of an explanation when you revert me. Unschool (talk) 14:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

If I may jump in here: I have reverted the dab page to JHunterJ's MOS:DAB-compliant version and left an explanation on the dab page's Talk page.--ShelfSkewed Talk 14:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I am more than satisfied with ShelfSkewed's explanation. As I said, I am open to enlightenment, and now I understand your actions. Cheers! Unschool (talk) 14:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I have no obsession with L&O, and I've seen maybe two or three episodes of it ever. But I did give an explanation in this move of the reason why there is a primary topic for the disambiguation. It came to my attention through Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages. Christmas Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that I understand the relevant portions of MOS:DAB, I recognize your edit summary as sufficient justification for the change. At the time, it seemed like litle more than rationalistic gibberish. My apologies for the rash assumption. Unschool (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Solidaridad Obrera

Hey, so your move of this, and wanted to point out that the reason I put a disambig title on it, was because there are two different labor unions of the same name, either one of which could wind up with an article. But, I don't know that that means the article should automatically get the title, is there a standard for this situation? Murderbike (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If there's only one (current) article at the name, it's the primary topic and should go at the base name. The disambiguation phrase can be added when it's needed, and even then the current Solidaridad Obrera might remain the primary topic and keep the base name. A disambiguation page and unambiguous titles aren't warranted until the other articles are created. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)