Open main menu

User talk:JHunterJ

This is the talk page for talking to, with or about me - JHunterJ
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page. The easiest way to do this is by clicking the [new section] on the navigation bar above.
Please respect

Talk page guidelines & Wikiquette

I will reply here unless you ask me to reply somewhere else.

Contents

The Torment of Saint AnthonyEdit

Another mistaken edit - how you think this meets "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that" is beyond me, given how common this subject is in art. It is more correctly called The Temptation of St. Anthony like most depictions of the subject - this is what it was sold as, and the title of the print it copies. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Given that you left The Torment of Saint Anthony redirecting to this article when you moved it for its supposed ambiguity. If you intend to convert the base name to a disambiguation page, I have no objection to you fixing your earlier mistake by moving it back. Or if you want to fix the other mistakes by using a more correct title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Huh? You appear to be whining that I haven't finished clearing up your mess after about 90 seconds! Of course, The Temptation of St. Anthony has been a disam page for years, and we only need one. Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
No, your move of nearly 10 years ago: 15:19, 17 May 2009 Johnbod (talk | contribs | block) moved page The Torment of Saint Anthony to The Torment of Saint Anthony (Michelangelo) (common subject, needs disaming). But thank you for finally fixing your mistake. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Direwolf listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Direwolf. Since you had some involvement with the Direwolf redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The One, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Downbeat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Page movesEdit

Happy 2019! - I had hoped our disagreements would cease ;) - Concerto for unaccompanied harpsichord (Bach) (not a title I would have chosen) is NOT a specific Concerto for unaccompanied harpsichord, as your title suggests. Did you read the article? It is a list of concertos for harpsichord by J. S. Bach. Find a better title, or move it back, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

"Concerto for unaccompanied harpsichord" is better than "Concerto for unaccompanied harpsichord (Bach)", given the lack of ambiguity to disambiguate. There may yet be another better title that also follows guidelines, and you're welcome to find it. Perhaps List of concertos for harpsichord by J. S. Bach? -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I wish we could ask the author. If I knew a better title I'd have suggested it. None of these pieces was called Concerto for harpsichord by its composer. They are placed together because they share characteristics. "Your" title sounds definitely like exactly one specific complsotion to me, so is misleading (and rarely true for any generic name). Want more confusion? The concertos for accompanied harpsichord come as Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
ps: "your" List of concertos for harpsichord by J. S. Bach could be a redirect to that. Typically, a concerto for violin (Violin Concerto) is for violin and orchestra. We need the "unaccompanied" or "solo" to differentiate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
New day, new thought: Concerto for unaccompanied harpsichord would tell me it's an article about that genre/form in general, such as Motet and Cantata. We have Motets (Bach) and Bach cantata, and perhaps could have Concertos for unaccompanied harpsichord (Bach) or Concertos for harpsichord solo (Bach)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
... until someone makes it to List of concertos for unaccompanied harpsichord by Johann Sevastian Bach, - nobody will ever put that in a search ;) - Works (Bach) would be such a great title! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Each of "Concerto for unaccompanied harpsichord" is better than "Concerto for unaccompanied harpsichord (Bach)" sounds just as much like exactly one specific composition, so it isn't "my" title that introduced that issue. "My" title brought the title into line with WP:PRECISION, which is what I do when I discover titles that don't follow that guideline. So, I improved the encyclopedia, and further improvements may be possible, and Wikipedia editors are welcome to make them. You are right, though, that this is a list, so I'll further improve its title by following the list article naming conventions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I moved what you thought improved the encyclopedia, and don't need those general remarks which sound like you think I and others intentionally make the encyclopedia worse. We seem to have a language problem. What in that it is crucial for the article to mention "unaccompanied" or "solo" did you not understand? The normal concertos for harpsichord are those NOT mentioned on the page (but in Keyboard concertos ...). Someone will probably tell you (in addition) that we don't shorten given names in such titles, but I'm not the one. - The move of La donna serpente (opera) was no improvement of the encyclopedia, and I'm not sure about Theresienstadt family camp where two usually clueful editors agreed on the talk that its misleading without more precision. - I recommend that you propose such moves before actually performing them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't need "Find a better title" remarks when you are unwilling to find a better title. The title I "found" was worse than the title I changed it to. I don't need the accusation that "my" title sounded definitely like exactly one specific composition to you when the title I found had exactly the same exactly-one-specific-composition sound to it. I don't need "What part of X did you not understand?" remarks. If you don't need remarks in response to those kinds of remarks, don't make those kinds of remarks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
We do seem to have a language problem, it must be my fault, because English is only a second language; please excuse my lack of nuance. KISS: please assume that established editors named pages for reasons that they may be willing to explain if you ask. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
That is why I stuck to explaining what I did. But when I explained that, you took that to mean that you were intentionally making the encyclopedia worse. Which I don't think and didn't say. Please assume that established editors who are very familiar with disambiguation and article naming conventions move pages for the reasons that they declare in the edit summaries of the moves. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Chimpanzee RMEdit

Hi JHunterJ, the RM you launched at Talk:Chimpanzee really ought to be bundled with the ongoing one at Talk:Common_chimpanzee#Requested_move_22_January_2019. Mind if I close it and add it to the other RM as a multi-move request?--Cúchullain t/c 18:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I see that that RM should have been a multi-move request, since it necessarily involves moving the disambiguation page. However, they are also possibly independent. The primary topic for "chimpanzee" is the common chimpanzee. The RM from the 22nd is about what title should the article for "common chimpanzee" have. If that decides that it should have the title "chimpanzee", great, we're all in agreement. If that decides that it should have the title "common chimpanzee", though, I still request that the disambiguation page be moved, and the RM from today (the 24th) is about what article (or disambiguation page) should the title "Chimpanzee" lead to (as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT if the other RM results in "not moved"). The request from the 6th IMO shouldn't have caught up the disambiguation page in its wake (the dab talk page didn't get a notification until the 22nd), but too late for that. So the Talk:Common_chimpanzee#Requested_move_22_January_2019 proposal should have the suggested disposition of the dab page added as well, but perhaps leave the other going, and if it gets closed as move, at that point the one I opened could be closed as overcome by events? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I think there's a high risk of confusing people. IMO, they should be bundled now, and if it fails, we can open another RM the dab page. But I won't do that if you feel strongly.--Cúchullain t/c 18:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
We could revert the recent move of the disambiguation page to the base name, since it was incidental to the RM of the 6th? Then leave the RM of the 22nd unchanged and close the RM of the 24th as moot. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
That could also be a possibility, though still potentially confusing. I'm going to be away from my desktop for awhile but will think about it.--Cúchullain t/c 20:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Berlin Reinickendorf (electoral district) and othersEdit

I see you've moved this and other Berlin electoral districts on the grounds of PRECISION. The problem is that, with the exception of Berlin Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg – Prenzlauer Berg East and Berlin Spandau – Charlottenburg North all of these share their name with Boroughs of Berlin which are more probably more notable than the parliamentary districts (since they organise local services.) I believe greater prevision is warranted here i.e. the old names. Valenciano (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The base names Berlin Reinickendorf et al. were unoccupied when I moved them, hence WP:PRECISION. If you believe the base name would be better served as a redirect elsewhere, I have no objection to the moves being reverted and the base name redirected. As long as the base names aren't empty. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

positionsEdit

Hi. I hold a different position and mean no offence when that varies from your own. Please excuse my opposition to those actions that conflict with my own, which, as i see it, are embracing solutions that accommodate a multitude of sourced opinions and assertions. I also recognise that my own position is founded on my own interpretation of policy, which I believe is very cautious and conservative, and being discourteous in the midst of that is is something I prefer to avoid. CC to BD2412 Yours sincerely, cygnis insignis 15:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Point of orderEdit

Hi JHunterJ

Just to respond to your most recent point in the now-closed discussion, my comments regarding yourself were not related to our difference of opinion in the RM itself. That is of course normal and fine, and I would expect us to spar in good humour in order to try to come to a consensus, or agree to disagree, as appropriate. What I did find out of order, though, was that both yourself and BD2412 were defending a clear objectively false message to the closer, namely: "As there was no specific consensus for the creation of a disambiguation page at this title, please note that if there is an absence of consensus in this discussion, the page should revert to the status quo ante preceding the creation of the disambiguation page, which was as a redirect". The chimpanzee page has never been a redirect, so that message is incorrect and misleading. I found it very disappointing that you refused to admit that. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, so you conflated me and BD2412. I made no such message and did not defend it, and in fact disagreed with it first.[1] -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, but your immediate response when I challenged BD2412's note to closer was to say "And your note as to what the previous discussion determined is also false". As can be seen from the clarification talk with the closer at User talk:Cuchullain, my note about the close of the previous discussion was entirely correct. I took that and your subsequent comments to mean that you were agreeing with BD2412 on his comment that a redirect was the "default" option, so if that was not the case then we're not in dispute.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I was going on exactly what was written in the close and in the discussion I was participating in, which I was entirely correct about. I didn't read User talk:Cuchullain, so your assumptions based on that are not my fault. See also my discussion with Cuchullain above about that part of the close being incidental to the discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Lord, have mercyEdit

Trying to do something about Lord, have mercy, I saw Lord Have Mercy and Lord, Have Mercy on Us, which I think should be merged. Kyrie means just Lord, with no mercy ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I've done some juggling. See what you think? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Fine. I had to move the Mendelssohn piece, see User talk:Smerus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The Deer's Cry (Pärt)Edit

Similar. I am a bit helpless here, there's The Deer's Cry, and there's Saint Patrick's Breastplate, saying it's know by that name. At least, and I really have no more time for it today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I added a hatnote for the other two meanings. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
If I had more time, I'd make the redirect to the Breastplate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

the princessEdit

Thank you for moving that one before on DYK. Why? looking at the book title, it's styled all lower case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia style is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Titles of works. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Can you then change accordingly? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I changed to to conform to Wikipedia style. Lowercase "in", initial caps for the other words. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I mean in the article, or shoulcd I do it for you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I believe I did, but if I missed any, certainly. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I did it for you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I typoed one! And the lede at that. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You don't have to follow the guidelines exactly.Edit

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style.

It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

I believe this is just one of those common sense exceptions. Its best to mention the book first, then the three films based on it. Dream Focus 15:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Understood. OTOH, I believe it isn't. And so the exception should be brought up on the talk page. Note also that before bringing it in line with the guidelines, the novel was in the "See also" section. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Three songsEdit

Is Three Songs a valid title? It is nothing unique. Why should the same thing in French be different? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

When there's a second topic for the same thing in French on English Wikipedia, we can move it back. WP:PRECISION.-- JHunterJ (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
No, I moved it back and made it a redirect to 3 Songs, which also has several Drei Lieder and Tres canciones. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for withdrawing, even if it's for the wrong reason. When will you see that 3 Chansons (4 Motets, 5 Minuets) is never a good title for a specific work unless the rare case of a primary topic? I can't think of a single one right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

AgainEdit

I seem to speak a different language. The redirect from "Jauchzet dem Herren, alle Welt" exists for one reason: you, to prevent you doing what you did for the Trois Chanson. It is also the incipit of Reger's much larher composition, and many others. A reader arriving at Psalm 100 can find Mandelssohn in the lead. A hatnote for his but not the much larger is nonsense. I'm busy, and away for vacation from tomorrow, so won't do anything. I should be happy about the extra attention for the composition on the Main page, but really: Reger's Der 100. Psalm is the only one deserving that place, and a primary topic no doubt. Whatever would go on a dab page for beginnings of the psalm in various languages - one of the most frequently set at all, just look at all the Jubilate - is in the section Musical settings on the psalms article, - why duplicate? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I keep explaining the need for reader navigation. Thank you for creating the redirect, which did indeed "prevent me" from fixing the type of problem you keep creating, which is creating a qualified title when nothing exists at the unqualified title. This, however, was a different problem you created: given that "Jauchzet dem Herren, alle Welt" would be the correct title for the Mendelssohn work and just needs a qualification because it's not the primary topic, now you need a navigational hatnote from the unqualified title for readers trying to reach the Mendelssohn article. If there were more than one such other article, then a dab page could be created and linked from the unqualified title article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
There's also "Jauchzet..." by Schütz, - just that we have no articles YET. Generally: when there is a text which several composers set to music, the undabbed article should go to the text, not to one of the compositions based on it. When I arrived at Wikipedia, Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme was a cantata by Bach. However, it's a hymn by Nicolai, on which other pieces are based, including that cantata. The mistake to confuse the two is so common that even (then) featured article candidate Messiah claimed that what Handel quoted was by Bach (not Nicolai). It takes patience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
The mistake is thinking that things that are YET to happen must be addressed NOW. WHEN things change in Wikipedia, THEN Wikipedia will change to handle them. It is an excellent system, and well addressed by WP:PRECISION, WP:HN, and WP:D. We have no article YET on a hypothetical playwright named William Shakespeare who might be born in 2050, but we are not going to move William Shakespeare to William Shakespeare (playwright born 1564) just to handle that case. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Nice comparison, but not to our point. The Bach cantatas followed what you want, first thing under a name gets that name, and project Classical music discussed in 2010 that it is nonsense to have the derived work without dab, and giving a dab to first thing. A 2050 Shakespeare would never be primary topic ;) When you have a Bach chorale cantata, you know that there's a chorale on which it is based, nothing hypothetical. - We do have articles which discuss a poem and its primary setting, mentioning other settings which will probably get no article, see Traum durch die Dämmerung. More common: Locus iste, the text, and Locus iste (Bruckner), a famous setting, one among others. Psalm 100 exists in many settings in various languages, as the article explains. I wouldn't want different dab pages for the individual languages. Food for thought? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS : WP:Classical music can't override the WP:AT policy, including WP:PRECISION. You are very knowledgeable about the contents of classical music articles. I happen to be very knowledgeable about Wikipedia navigation by disambiguation pages and hatnotes. Sometimes articles are arranged one way, and sometimes another, sometimes disambiguation pages cover slight variations in titling, and sometimes different disambiguation pages are used for slight variations in titling. The goal for disambiguation pages and hatnotes is getting the reader to their sought article as efficiently as possible. In most cases, we use different disambiguation pages for the "same" title in different languages, because the topics sought by readers searching for a title in French is is most cases a different set than the topics sought by readers searching for a title in English. So yes, we want different dab pages for individual languages, because it serves the reader (not the topic article editors) better. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
In how many languages do you suggest dab pages for Psalm 100, which is just one of 150 psalms? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
In how many variations do we have ambiguity for it on English Wikipedia? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know, but I know at least Latin - English - German, and I know that it's the same content, just different translations. Therefore, I'd just redirect them to that content Psalm 100, as I did. Much more flexible than creating a Spanish dab when the second Spanish works comes, and a Finnish ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Psalm 100 isn't a dab page. What are the ambiguous topics on English Wikipedia for the Latin name of Psalm 100, other than Psalm 100? For its Spanish name? For its German name? -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I see that Der 100. Psalm doesn't redirect to Psalm 100 and doesn't have a needless qualifier appended to its title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
German for Psalm 100 is de:Psalm 100, while Der 100. Psalm is a specific unique composition by Reger. I admit to have hesitated when I named it ;) - No Spanish article for the Psalm, surprise, but French, would be "Servez l’Éternel, avec joie". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Figaro lässt sich scheidenEdit

Figaro lässt sich scheiden was (until I just moved it because the "ss" spelling is not historic, and not in the source) the title of an opera, created in 2007. In German the same is the title of the play on which the opera is based, de:Figaro lässt sich scheiden. (Note there that the page name is with "ss" while the title in the infobox is correct with "ß" - 1963 orthography when it was premiered.) What will we do if an English article about the play is created, and a German title about the opera? The simple rule "whatever is created first gets no disambiguation" leads to confusion again, if you ask me. I'd have prefered the derived opera with a dab "(opera)" from the start. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Valid options:
  1. The current arrangement:
  2. New article, no primary topic for either orthography:
  3. New article, but the opera is the primary topic:
  4. New article, and it is the primary topic:
Invalid option:
  1. "disambiguate" the article about the opera on English Wikipedia before ambiguity exists on English Wikipedia
-- JHunterJ (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your view. I have problems with the concept of primary topic, - who decides on which standards? It seems so much easier to say that the original work (here the play) needs no dab, while the derived one gets one. I KNOW that Wikipedia doesn't work like that, so some singer who called himself after a famous composer ("derived" if ever there was such a thing) makes that composer need a dab. Made me sick when it happened. People are used to just use surnames for famous composers such as Bach and Beethoven. Try that for Humperdinck. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
See also The Godfather (derived work is primary), Gone with the Wind (no primary). People have tried to get Franz Ferdinand (band) and Muse (band) into the primary slots, happily without success, although Madonna is a disambiguation page rather than a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Mary, mother of God. Consensus decides (often with input from the readership by means of measurements of page hits). -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
You didn't say what you think of the Humperdinck case. I wish they had tried "happily without success", one singer seems not much different from a band in the context. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Engelbert Humperdinck (composer)#Requested move (revisited) seems adequately considered. Humperdinck does not have the same "cultural literacy" base as Bach or even Franz Ferdinand. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Imagine someone took your name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Someone has. Or I have someone's name, in any event. But in Humperdinck's case, the person you're asking me to imagine being is also dead, which I imagine overshadows any name envy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
The person is dead and can't complain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Hearts RM closeEdit

Your RM close stated there "was no clear consensus whether to move the hearts disambiguation page to the base name", so I have to ask, why did you move it there? There was no need. It should have stayed at Hearts (disambiguation) and Hearts could have simply stayed as a leftover redirect to the Hearts (card game) page. You moving the DAB, despite lack of consensus, seems more like a WP:SUPERVOTE, especially given that you immediately opened up another RM with that as your stated preference.

Please revert this move of the DAB, and withdraw your new RM as undiscussed/no consensus. Leave future handling to the community. -- Netoholic @ 16:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The consensus was that the card game was not the primary topic for "hearts", so it can't continue to be the primary topic for "hearts". See WP:PRECISION as well. There was no WP:SUPERVOTE, and actually reading my preference you will find that it is for not merging the dabs, and has no preference for whether the primary topic for "hearts" is Heart or nothing (landing on the disambiguation page). -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The SUPERVOTE was in moving the DAB to the base name, even after admitting in the close that there was no consensus for that. This sets up the wrong status quo result in the new RM, since a no-consensus in the 2nd RM to move it back to its original location means it stays at primary. That goes against WP:THREEOUTCOMES in regard to the location of the DAB page. -- Netoholic @ 18:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
There was a consensus against the card game being primary but no clear consensus if the organ was primary so indeed the correct thing to do was put the DAB at the base name. Keeping the situation as it was makes no sense since it was clear that there was consensus against the card game being primary, that's not a super vote in any way. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
(ec) There was no clear consensus between the possibilities. Three commenters were in favor of what I ended up using as a stopgap, and two were in favor of redirecting to Heart. There was no possible "status quo" result, since the clear consensus was that the card game was not the primary topic for the title "Hearts". -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The status quo result was to leave the leftover redirect from HeartsHearts (card game). -- Netoholic @ 18:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Contrary to WP:PRECISION, so not a viable option. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
But as you favour the organ as primary, the DAB at the base name is a step closer to that that just keeping "Hearts" redirecting to the card game which doesn't make sense if the card game isn't primary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Issues of WP:PRECISION and WP:MALPLACED can be handled via other means - they do not have to be settled by your preference as part of an RM close. Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions does not say that you, as closer, must find a resolution to these issues yourself, immediately. Just close the portions of the RM according to WP:THREEOUTCOMES, and leave the rest for other, future processes and discussions. -- Netoholic @ 18:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I partially settled and partially relisted the RM based on the discussion there and Wikipedia policies (which include WP:PRECISION) and guidelines (which include WP:MALPLACED). You're welcome to continue to ignore my answers, but I'm done repeating them for you. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
That isn't JHJ's preferences its our standard practices, the fact that we're even debating which topic is primary for "Hearts" is a good sign that none is primary and the DAB should be at the base name. Per WP:THREEOUTCOMES there was a clear consensus that the card game wasn't primary so moving that was required and seeing if a different article is primary can be dealt with later (hence the new RM). Generally by default there is no PT and the DAB is at the base name unless a topic can be shown to be primary which wasn't the case here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Move review for Hearts (disambiguation)Edit

An editor has asked for a Move review of Hearts (disambiguation). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Netoholic @ 18:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Requesting your opinionEdit

Hi. A conflict has arisen on the Adam Hughes article. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Verticordia rutilastraEdit

Hello JHunterJ,

Thanks for your interest in V. rutilastra. It is one of about one hundred species of Verticordia (and, of course, about ten thousand other flowering plant species) found in the south-west of Western Australia, and nowhere else in the world. Three species (V. cunninghamii, V. verticillata and V. decussata only occur in the Northern Territory or the Kimberley and a few have a range that extends beyond the south-west. The majority, however, only occur in this biodiversity hotspot. The south-west of W.A. (which I have linked to either "Southwest Australia (ecoregion)" or to "South West, Western Australia") extends from about Geraldton in the north-west to Esperance in the south-east. If you have not had the chance to visit, it is highly recommended if you are interested in plants. My best wishes to you. Gderrin (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay - so will you be making the same change to the other 98 verticordia, 200-odd melaleuca, 350-odd orchid, 50-odd eremophila and many other Wikipedia articles that have "south-west of Western Australia" as the V. rutilastra article had a couple of days ago? Interestingly, none of my sources has "Southwest Australia" and certainly would not have it capitalised since "southwest" is a common noun. Elizabeth George's Verticordia monograph has "the south-west corner of Western Australia", Robert Chinnock's monograph, Eremophila and related genera has "the south-western portion of Western Australia", Lyndley Craven's Melaleuca monograph has "the south-western region of Western Australia" and Stephen Hopper's Field Guide to the Orchids of Western Australia has "the flora of southwest Western Australia". (A typical journal article with "south-west Western Australia".)[1] I'm working on Eucalyptus species at the moment, many of which occur in the south-west of Western Australia. Will you be changing them too? Just curious. Gderrin (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Brown, Andrew A.; Brockman, Garry (2015). "New taxa of Caladenia (Orchidaceae) from south-west Western Australia" (PDF). Nuytsia. 25: 45–124. Retrieved 10 April 2019.
If you're objecting to an improvement on an article because other articles need the same improvement, note that Wikipedia is a volunteer thing and incremental improvements are acceptable and encouraged. Hopefully you understand the improvement being made that avoids a link that looks like "south-west" not landing on south-west[1] but rather Southwest Australia (ecoregion). But ultimately, yes, I will likely be changing others as I encounter them, but the encounters won't happen on assignment from other volunteers. If you'd like for them to be consistently improved, you're of course welcome to do so, and if you'd like assistance, to create a list or project or bot or something. I'd probably collaborate in the processing such a list. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ I note that your source appears, at least to the layman, to use "south-west" in this fashion, not as the Proper Name of an ecoregion
This requires discussion, not an immediate dismissal and invitation to enforce your decision or reaction. cygnis insignis 14:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!Edit

  7&6=thirteen () has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen () 15:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

ChimpEdit

Please do not revert again. Chimp is short for chimpanzee and should redirect there. The other links on the disambiguation are named after the animal anyway. People who will time "chimp" in search are looking for the animal. LittleJerry (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Please brush up on WP:OWN, WP:CUTPASTE, and WP:CONSENSUS, and then use WP:RM to request the move of the disambiguation page from the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and of course WP:BRD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Creation of stub page for "Somdip Dey"Edit

Hello JHunterJ,

I am trying to create a stub page for "Somdip Dey". Since you are a reputed Wikipedian, I was hoping if you could help me to create the page for Somdip Dey.

Somdip Dey is an Embedded AI scientist at the University of Essex and the Samsung R&D Institute UK. Somdip's research focus is on making Artificial Intelligence accessible to developing countries.

References:

1. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/desires-of-a-modern-indian/overseas-indian-scientist-on-a-mission-to-make-artificial-intelligence-accessible-to-developing-countries/

2. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/desires-of-a-modern-indian/three-important-tips-to-manage-successful-artificial-intelligence-projects/

3. https://thriveglobal.com/stories/big-ideas-use-ai-blockchain-and-edge-computing-to-reduce-food-waste-and-stabilize-world-hungerwith-somdip-dey/

4. https://coinrivet.com/dangers-of-keyloggers-in-cryptocurrency/

5. https://www.cmswire.com/information-management/how-to-map-out-a-successful-artificial-intelligence-strategy/

6. https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/a25752707/celebrity-apps-kim-kardashian-taylor-swift/

7. https://thefrisky.com/this-man-developed-a-technology-to-make-students-life-easy-after-graduation/

8. https://www.shefinds.com/collections/how-often-replace-android-phone/

9. https://zety.com/blog/c-sharp-interview-questions

10. https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/wikininjas/2019/02/11/interview-with-a-technet-wiki-ninja-and-c-expert-somdip-dey/

With Regards, Essex PR Essex PR (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC) Essex PR

Check out Wikipedia:Your first article#Still need help? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

"Original research"Edit

"original research" does NOT mean "something I never heard before". I know you are probably incorrigible and set in your ways, but I would seriously ask you never to use the term without at least taking a few seconds to do a google search to see if you are wrong again. Who knows, you might even want to add a reference yourself! Your ability to detect "trivia" is equally low, so I'd be cautious about that too. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I know you are probably incorrigible and set in your ways, but I didn't use WP:OR in any way that it isn't being used there. By all means, continue to improve the citations that had improvement requested back in 2015. I'm happy to have been able to spur this improvement to the encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Also sprach Zarathustra (disambiguation)Edit

In Talk:Also sprach Zarathustra (disambiguation)#Requested move 24 April 2019, there were 6 opinions that strongly believed the Nietzsche work to not be the primary topic and only 1 opposed, so I think more opportunity should have been given for people to align on a common solution since there is clearly consensus for change. For example, pinging the people who opposed the original proposal and supported the alt to see if they would prefer the original proposal (as a compromise) over the current situation if they had to choose between the two, as well as pinging the people who supported the original proposal and did not give an opinion on the alt. And if it's a mere technicality of Also sprach Zarathustra (Strauss) not being tagged, then tagging it and relisting for another week would be the right way forward. I urge you to reopen and relist the discussion. -- King of ♠ 02:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Which would be identical to RMing Also sprach Zarathustra (Strauss) directly, only not as clean-cut, since the proposed move could closed out and left off the new discussion. Which is what I suggest. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I missed the whole thing, but would be strongly opposed to Also sprach Zarathustra being Strauss, while it's a derived work, and the original is by Nietzsche, - it would mean crediting the wrong person with this work. We just had a move discussion for Der geteilte Himmel. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circularEdit

 
Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 03:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)Edit

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


Nineteen-EEdit

 
"I hope you realise WP:PRECISION"

I hope you realize every article on a tropical depression has the year in it. Every time the Eastern Pacific reaches the 19th name, it is TD Nineteen-E. This has occurred many times, so years are necessary to differentiate between them. NoahTalk 10:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I hope you realize WP:PRECISION. When there's ambiguity on Wikipedia, then Wikipedia disambiguates the title. Not before. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Hurricane Noah, this is a religious belief. Look above and in the archives. What I learned to do is make the dab page before the special thing. Example Trois Chansons, how would that ever be a precise unique name? But until the argument was over, that was the name for Ravel's composition, believe it or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
You have a religious belief against the consensus WP:PRECISION? But yes, if you're introducing ambiguity to Wikipedia, that's the time to disambiguate it. So we're in agreement with that learning. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I have seen nonsense like described above in the name of Precision, and I think if you avoid repeats of nonsense, and I take care to know in advance to watch out, I will not have to return. As soon as I saw your move of the storm, however, I felt it coming ;) - I have a belief in the quality checking of the Featured article process, and if an article title has survived that, there's probably a reason. How about next time find out the reason before you move a featured article? - There are ideas such as sequences of storms / sonatas / you name it, which call for a unified approach rather than a precision (and precision only) simple handling without context. I still remember the (unpleasant 2012) discussion about the title of the Moonlight Sonata, which would be so nice and precise, but defies the pattern of Beethoven's piano sonatas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
On the other hand, I have a belief in the project's policies. How about you suggest the change you think should be made to the policy that WP:PRECISION is a part of before you act like it's a religious belief of mine. The idea that the pursuit of the unified approach only rather than precision is addressed there: "when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. For example, it would be redundant to title an article "Queen (rock band)", as Queen (band) is precise enough to distinguish the rock band from other uses of the term "Queen". This may lead to some acceptable inconsistency; for instance, the article on chickens is found at Chicken, but the article on turkeys is at Turkey (bird) to disambiguate it from the country Turkey". -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not at all into writing policy, not only because English isn't my native tongue, also because of my wide IAR attitude. Your last examples are all fine with me, but 3 Chansons, which isn't any more unique than general Chansons, just wasn't. - Can we leave it at: when you find a title not ok per precision, you ask why that is before you move, and the higher the reviewed quality level of an article the more important? There's a reason behind a move protection for featured content when on the Main page, and we should handle it with care even when not on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
We can leave it at: when a page is moved per precision (or other policy), we then discuss why WP:IAR should be applied instead. WP:IAR is applied with consensus, not individual attitude. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I have learned to check the "Tomorrow" and "Day after tomorrow" pages, and follow the DYK queue pages to try and catch them before they are on the main page though. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
You arent supposed to make potentially controversial page moves without discussion. Multiple people have expressed their opposition to your page move. WP:PRECISION does not apply here as there have been numerous TD 19-E's over the years. For example, Olaf in 2015 started as TD 19-E and ended up becoming a Cat 4 hurricane. Nobody else has had a problem with having the year on this storm or the others that have gone through the FAC process. Please move it back to its original title. NoahTalk 15:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Why doesn't WP:PRECISION apply here? Where was that WP:IAR discussed? -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
It doesnt apply because there are plenty other storms that were also Nineteen-E over the years. Considering every other TD article has the year in the title, you should have known to have not moved this one without discussion. You should honestly move this back and then have a discussion about moving all of them if you think it is wrong. NoahTalk 15:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

Hi, thanks for the edits you made to El Drago Milenario and Parque del Drago last night. Please accept my apologies for the blanket reverts, yesterday was a long day and I should have logged off Wikipedia earlier. With the galleries - I'm not a fan of them, as their existence tends to mean that the article has too many images in it, so thanks for removing them from the last edit. With the travel info, I think it's useful to include the past and present entrance info to show how it's changed over time, unfortunately I can't easily find the past info here so I just added the current info and will wait for it to change in the future. ;-) I hope that makes sense, and apologies again for the blanket reverts! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank, Mike Peel. The hours of operation and admissions charge are still not encyclopedic, and I don't think "how it's changed over time" is either, unless there's some WP:RS that treats the change over time as a topic to cover. Please see WP:NOTGUIDE, which covers this and uses prices as a specific example. But also see https://wikitravel.org for an appropriate place for that information. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I've read that guide - it talks about not including "the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées" - but nothing about entrance fees or opening hours? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk)`
There's nothing encyclopedic about hours of operation or entrance fees. Per WP:NOTGUIDE. You boldly added the information. Its addition was reverted. If you still disagree, build consensus on the talk page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Broken formattingEdit

Though it's likely unintentional, your edit on Kuria people caused severe damage to the formatting of multiple tables and lists in the article. I can't revert your edit, because that would undo the various pieces of content you adjusted and added.

I'll try to do what I can to reverse the harm done, but please be more careful in the future. Wsan2 (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Reflist jiggery pokeryEdit

You wrote "let the reflist handle columning". How does it do that? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

When it gets "enough" bullets, it auto-columns them. And I think "enough" varies based on the reader's display. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
See Template:Reflist#Columns. There are specific cases where overriding the auto is useful, but typically the auto columning handles it well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
The problem I think is while it probably works well for established articles, which are generally over-long and under-sourced, for something new like Lees of Scotland, which for a new article and DYK nomination has to be well sourced, it results in the citations taking up about a third of the article space. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Why is that a problem, since they're after the content? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, because the references are a list of short lines, they contain more space than the prose, which focuses a reader's attention on the wrong thing. It's the same reason why magazines will put quote boxes in order to break up the flow of a piece (see here). Having said that, it's a "problem" in the same way that I don't have any jam to put on my toast tomorrow morning is a "problem" ie: it's very mildly irritating, but not enough to bother doing anything about. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
And it seems to be a problem of preference, at least in the template talk archives for reflist. Which is why the automatic behavior is for single column for fewer than 10 references (or 10 or fewer, whichever way). I find the "too-short" columns more jarring. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Mark Jackson moveEdit

I just want to point out that the votes at Talk:Mark Jackson#Requested move 15 May 2019 are not evenly split – 5 were against and 4 were for. I thought about writing there but since the discussion is already closed I am writing directly to the person who made the move, which is you. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I assume the requester is for as well, so a simple count of 5-5. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Good catch. I completely forgot about the requester. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
As an opposer I feel like that was not the right call and it should have been a “no consensus.” For names as common as “Mark Jackson” it seems like just looking at page views is not the right call, because these can shift wildly over time (see the recent move of Kevin Johnson to a DAB - by the same requestor as this page move no less - because they had shifted when at one time the basketball player had been the dominant pageview for the title). With common names there is going to be flux so it seems like there should be some lasting notability, which is absent for Mark Jackson. It seems like for common names like this (10+ notable entries), both criteria of wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC should be met - it’s a different scenario than if there are just a couple of subjects with the same name. I’d ask this move be relisted rather than close it - I think the opposers were not treated fairly and those voting in favor didn’t have an ironclad argument, as I’d expect with a split decision being decided on policy grounds. Rikster2 (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
The opposes with policy-based reasons were in the minority though. The policy-based grounds were the basis of the decision. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I also ask that you reconsider the close rationale. It mentioned "policy-and-guideline based reasons", but guideline WP:PRIMARYTOPIC lists as one criteria: A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. I believe most opposers, even if some implicitly, are referring to this.—Bagumba (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
But none of the topics met that criterion, so it was not a factor. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
If WP:PRIMARYTOPIC said that either page views or long-term significance was sufficient, I would see your point. However, it says that ... Wikipedia has no single criterion for defining a primary topic, two major aspects that editors commonly consider are these ... My interpretation is that it's up to the !voters to weigh those (or any other) criteria. The guideline doesn't dictate that one criteria is sufficient; it's up to the participants to judge. Typically, I !vote that long-term significance is required, and use page views as a tie breaker. Others are free to use their own criteria. I don't think the closing should place more weight into one criteria—page views in this case—and discount the 50% of voters that opposed based on significance of the subject. Thanks for your consideration.—Bagumba (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
More weight was not placed on either criterion. Both criteria were considered in the discussion, one ended up not being a factor. The criterion isn't "only topics with long term significance can possibly be primary topic". -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Neither is the criteria "only topics with the largest page views can possibly be primary topic". I do not see anything in PRIMARYTOPIC which encourages the close to conclude that "one ended up not being a factor", when the opposes's are within the guidelines to argue that significance is a factor, especially when it's an example criteria in the guideline itself. I see this more as a "no consensus" to change a long-standing title. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

This is why I think you should have let the discussion continue. For subjects with 10+ entries there will always be more notable folks coming along. The basketball player is a current announcer so it doesn’t shock me he has the most page views in 2019. It’s not required that a page meets both criteria in PRIMARYTOPIC but the discussion is supposed to suss out these issues. Rikster2 (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd be OK with that too, and JHunterJ could !vote too.—Bagumba (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
For every title there's always the possibility primaryness can change. At which time the arrangement of articles will change. But we don't (and can't) arrange the present titles for all future possibilities. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
But with common names and subjects without lasting notability we know it’s pretty much going to happen. Go look at the recent page move of Kevin Johnson (basketball), done exclusively because of page views - and he had a much bigger claim to lasting notability than Mark Jackson. But it’s bren my experience that admins typically don’t reconsider their decisions and that appears to also be the case here, so thank you for your time. Rikster2 (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
And yet Michael Jordan and Kevin Smith aren't dab pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
And yet both of those individuals have clear lasting notability. They will both likely be remembered in 100 years. That’s the point, for common names it seems logical that a subject should meet both criteria. Rikster2 (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
That's not the guideline, though, which is why the supports appeared to reflect the consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
The guideline also doesn’t say that it’s either/or, which is why discussions are needed. Just because I didn’t link primarytopic in my oppose doesn’t mean I was making an irrelevant argument or one disconnected from policy (and others DID link it). There were probably five or so of these basketball moves requested at the same time. I voted in favor of similar moves for David Robinson and Chris Mullin as both of those subjects met both parts of the guideline. If the subject has clear long-term notability there is at least a chance they won’t be knocked off later because some singer has a string of hits. Michael Jordan is unlikely to be supplanted by another individual as primarytopic thoughbthere is a slim chance that could move to a DAB page if some super celebrity also had the name Rikster2 (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Rikster2, whether you realize it or not, what you're arguing is that unless a person with a common name has established long-term notability, they are not the primary topic, no matter how much more likely they are to be sought than the other people with that name. That comes from a rather fantastic reading of PRIMARYTOPIC, and not the intended meaning. --В²C 23:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Move review for Mark JacksonEdit

An editor has asked for a Move review of Mark Jackson. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. —Bagumba (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Move of Chevauchée of Edward III of 1346Edit

G'day JHunterJ, I was wondering why you moved "Chevauchée of Edward III of 1346" without discussion first on the talk page? Edward III led numerous chevachées in France. i.e. 1339, 1345, 1346, 1355, 1356 and 1359. Could you in future please discuss with main page editors (@Gog the Mild:) before such moves. Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

For the policy noted in the edit summary, WP:PRECISION. If and when Wikipedia has articles about the others, it could be moved and the base name turned into a disambiguation page. See WP:OWN for why I won't check with "main editors" before applying policy. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@JHunterJ: - If you had advised me of proposed move on talk page of article, I could have created dab page and made a start on 1339 chevauchee. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Yep. And after the policy-based move to fix the way it was created instead, you can still do that. No harm done, encyclopedia boldly and incrementally improved. Rather than think that I should have checked with you before moving the article, perhaps you should have checked with the article titling policy when creating the article? Note that I have no problem with the sequence as it has unfolded, except for your WP:OWN ideas that I needed to check with you before bringing the articles that existed at the time into line with policy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mars (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Minotaur-class cruiser (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

ShelleyEdit

Are you sure that closing it as a primary topic change was the best idea, given that point made by the last user and my comments about how many people would search for the poet under just "Shelley" shouldn't it have been closed as "moved Shelley → Shelley (name) and the DAB to the base name without prejudice for subsequent option of moving the disambiguation page to the base name" preferably with statistics from a Shelley (poet) redirect (on the main DAB page) similar to Lincoln (president) and EA (video game company). While redirecting appears to have been supported by the majority of editors no one (other than my Google search) had shown that the poet is primary for "Shelley" on its own. Wasn't my point that the actual uses of just "Shelley" account to around 12% of the views of the poet (even ignoring the other people with the 1st of last name) relevant since no one had shown that anywhere near those searching want the poet. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Moving the disambiguation page didn't get consensus, which is why I left it as an unprejudiced option. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
But did redirecting get consensus either? If Mercury hosted an article on the element and there was a RM where everyone agreed that the element was primary but some favoured treating the planet as primary and there was consensus to move the element away from the base name but no consensus to move the planet to the base name, would that somehow mean that the planet should be treated as primary. If you really don't think no consensus means prevents the DAB from being moved to the base name then shouldn't it have had a "partial relist" like what you did at Talk:Hearts#Requested move 25 March 2019 but I don't think redirecting is particularly fair since if there is a later "no consensus" then that would presumably mean the redirect would remain. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Moving to the name page had consensus, and redirecting to the poet had support. If it had had full consensus, I wouldn't have left it unprejudiced. Shelley isn't Mercury isn't Lincoln. The Hearts analogy is apt, and this discussion had support for the primary redirect that that discussion didn't have an analog for. The suggestion to do a traffic study with the Shelley (poet) redirect is a good one, and could be made at the disambiguation talk page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I am unable to identify sufficient merit in the latest changes made to the Shelley, British Columbia page. Consequently, when I next edit this page with a series of updates, it will be based upon the prior version.DMBanks1 (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I was able to identify sufficient merit in the guidelines and policies reflected in those changes, so I was able to restore it. Please see WP:OWN; your inability to identify merit is not a reason to revert. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I am bewildered as to why you chose not to ask my reasoning. My initial reaction was that you had vandalized the page. After careful consideration that impression has not changed. Shelley is a geographical location that comprises distinct components which can be seen from a careful reading of the subject matter. My use of "community" in the article refers to the historical Caucasian settlement. Furthermore, the starting of a sentence with "it" is deemed to be a sloppy writing practice. Consequently, I am undoing your latest change because it is an opening detraction.DMBanks1 (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Not bewildered enough to ask my reasoning, though, I see. Do not accuse me of vandalism. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
A simple apology for wasting both of our times would have been acceptable. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be a mindset.DMBanks1 (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
You have accused me of meritless editing, ignorance, and vandalism, and wasted both of our times. That is an unfortunate mindset for this collaborative project. A simple apology would be a step in the right direction. JHunterJ (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I remain puzzled by your confrontational approach on what should be collaborative effort. I am clearly wasting my time in attempting to clarify matters.DMBanks1 (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Your approach has been entirely confrontational. I can confirm that you are wasting your time if the goal is to get me to apologize for that. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
My sole goal has always been to enable every reader to enhance their understanding of the subject matter. Consequently, I am somewhat surprised by our interchanges.DMBanks1 (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
How strange that you wouldn't rather work with other editors then and instead be so quick to revert things just because you personally don't understand their merit. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
If only it were true.DMBanks1 (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

What is a museum etc.Edit

Hi, JHunterJ! Thanks for wading through what was a complex RfD rather than simply closing it as a trainwreck. I just want to ask about one of them: You did not delete What is the origin of life?, I assume because you were including it in the category of "What is the meaning of life? questions to be further discussed. However, What is the origin of life? is not one of those: It redirects to Abiogenesis, not Meaning of life, and it has since its creation. It only happens to resemble that bundle of redirects. If you had some reason for keeping it, I can relist it for discussion, but since it was not previously a subject of discussion, I want to ask you about it here before going ahead and relisting it. (Note: It had also been deleted in a previous RfD.) — the Man in Question (in question) 23:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Yep, just kinda mentally lumped it with the other lifers. I'll go catch it up (delete it). Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Peaceul RevolutionEdit

Hello, User:JHunterJ, would you mind copy editing Peaceful Revolution at some point, which has recently had the page "Die Wende" merged into it. I've noticed that you are quite ruthless in removing unnecessary blather and that's what this page needs. I've had a go at part of it. Some of it has been written by non-native speakers. It's an important topic and this year is the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, so it would be good to have the page tidied up. If you don't want to, I completely understand. Felixkrater (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Best compliment ever. You talked me into it! :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

DAB page methods on The TruthEdit

  1. I'm curious about why you avoid sorting headers alphabetically on DAB pages. What are the arguments against it?
  2. As someone with graduate degrees in English, I can tell you in America the word "literature" is reserved for serious fiction, drama, and poetry. A printed book doesn't automatically earn the vaunted title "literature" simply because it is a printed book. We study American Literature and English Literature in school. That's what our textbooks are called. Although advertisers have managed to sneak other uses for the term, as in "Please refer to our company literature", the use for the term I have suggested is the correct one. Is the looser, promotional usage a Britishism? Maybe you know. I don't.
  3. I'm puzzled at why you feel books disqualify as entertainment, as you deleted the header Books.
  4. Why is a musician an "artist"? Is there something wrong with being a musician? Does the word "artist" connote a moral or religious superiority that we all ought to aspire to? Why is music but not television a division of art in your ordering? Or is it Art? You could avoid these matters if you had stuck with the header Entertainment, given that art and television both are supposed to entertain.
  5. Why should people be grouped under the header People when the fact that they have names reveals they obviously are people?
  6. Why was the red link under See Also allowed to remain?
  7. Inevitably when I write posts like this, trying to dig into a subject, asking for explanations, asking questions, the person I'm addressing assumes I am being insulting, ironic, or sarcastic. I'm not. None of the above. I'm simply asking questions simply. I should not have to say "I mean this literally" in order to prevent a person from reading between the lines. But I'm saying it now. Every edit must have reasons behind it. Would you explain yours? Thanks.
    Vmavanti (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  1. Fixed. Why do you assume I avoid it based on one miss?
  2. Primary definition of "literature" from Merriam Webster: "writings in prose or verse"
  3. I don't.
  4. If you don't want assumptions of sarcasm or insulting or irony, try to avoid letting your imagination run away with you. I promoted each of the sections of entertainment out from under it.
  5. Because people are people? I'm not sure how to answer that one unironically. "People" is one of the staple dab sections.
  6. Fixed.
Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I hope one day to have a discussion on Wikipedia that lacks irony, where my questions are answered with the seriousness and sincerity with which they were written. I find the accusation of "letting your imagination away with you" false, a violation of policy because insults are personal attacks, and example of what psychologists call projection. All commonplace on Wikipedia. Like a rash that never goes away. Wikipedia has a particularly British way of conversing: barbed periphrasis.
  1. I was referring to this particular instance, of course. I wasn't generalizing about your lifetime of editing.
  2. You know as well as I do that words sometimes stray from their literal dictionary definition, sometimes with good reason. Culture differences are one reason. Quoting the dictionary, in this instance, is insufficient and too superficial an answer given everything I said. But if that's the best you can do, I have to live with it.
  3. I'm glad you admitted I made some legitimate suggestions points (after insulting me to protect your ego). Everyone makes mistakes.
    Vmavanti (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I hope you are one day able to initiate such as discussion, and recommend you avoid easily-taken-as-sarcastic things like "Does the word "artist" connote a moral or religious superiority that we all ought to aspire to?" as a way to reach that goal.
  1. I was also referring to this instance, rather than generalizing it to an "avoid" behavior.
  2. Quoting the dictionary was quite sufficient to answer your question, even if it wasn't the answer you would have liked.
  3. And I hoped you would take my answers with the seriousness and sincerity they were written, but it seems you hypocritically chose to assume I was being insulting. Good call on your projection there though, although I realize you were projecting your projection on me.
Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Habsburg Empire and Habsburg MonarchyEdit

Hi, i've noticed that you have worked on some Habsburg articles. We now have Habsburg Empire redirecting to Habsburg Monarchy. Since that article is actually about Danubian lands from 1526 to 1804, now every article talking about the Habsburg Empire of Charles V and the fall of the Habsburg Empire in 1918 points there. Either we completely re-write Habsburg Monarchy as Habsburg Empire (starting in 1282 and ending in 1918, encompassing Charles V, Austrian empire and Austria-Hungary) or we re-stablish a disambiguation page for Habsburg Empire. Or maybe a separate article for Habsburg Empire. What do you think about this?

Barjimoa (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

NevermindEdit

It seems that I solved the issue above with another user. Barjimoa (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

DYKEdit

Sorry for my mistake. My eyes are still groggy from just waking up and I thought I looked further enough. SL93 (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Help with MCU phases page title conventionEdit

Hi JHunterJ,

Ref: Talk:List_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_films#Request for comments, Naming of phases

We seem unable to reach a consensus on a naming convention after agreeing to split List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films by phases. We tried RfC but it didn't help. So, maybe reaching out to an admin might help. Basically, Marvel splits their MCU movies into phases: phase 1, phase 2 etc. The title needs to have both "Marvel Cinematic Universe" and "Phase One" for it to be WP:PRECISE.

Some of the title formats being considered are:

  • Phase One of the Marvel Cinematic Universe - the formal, natural title, WP:NATURALDIS
  • Phase One of Marvel Cinematic Universe - shorter version of the 1st one
  • Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One - precise and concise, similar to trilogy naming convention eg Star Wars prequel trilogy
  • Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One - if we treat the phases as subtitles, part of a series etc, better separation of MCU and phase
  • Marvel Cinematic Universe (Phase One) - if we use TV season naming convention eg. The Flash (season 1)
  • Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe) - the current draft's title format

The main disagreement seems to stem from some people insisting on keeping "Phase One (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" format used in the drafts... without giving any arguments to support it besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT and incorrectly calling it a WP:COMMONNAME. However, that title doesn't seem to pass Wikpedia naming policies like WP:NCDAB, WP:NATURALDIS, WP:CRITERIA among others since it's an unneeded and improper use of parenthetical disambiguation. And it's not being chosen to meet an existing naming conventions:

  • Per WP:NATURALDIS and WP:NCDAB - since we already have more suitable natural titles, we should avoid parenthetical disambiguations
  • WP:NCDAB says we should avoid proper nouns like "Marvel Cinematic Universe" as the disambiguating phrase in parenthesis. (unless it's the only option)

While, we don't have to follow WP:POLICY strictly, I believe choosing to ignore the policies and guidelines should be based on a solid indisputable argument as opposed to WP:IDONTLIKEIT... especially if we have other suitable titles. I've tried to get people to give actual facts, policies or guidelines to insist on the problematic title or to justify that it's WP:COMMONNAME but nothing so far.

Please see if you can help.

Thanks, Starforce13 14:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to the discussion. When you can, please keep tabs on it to try to keep people on track. Thanks. Starforce13 14:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

GramophoneEdit

Hello JHunterJ - could you check your close at Talk:Phonograph record#Requested move 17 August 2019 please, because I believe the consensus was to redirect Gramophone to Phonograph and not to Phonograph record. Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, I see that now. The one commenter's "this article" must've stood out more than it should have at first pass. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Move associated talk pagesEdit

Hi JHunterJ, thanks for performing the requested move of "Hang the DJ", but could you please also move the associated talk pages accordingly? Talk:Hang the DJ (Black Mirror) should be moved to Talk:Hang the DJ, which currently redirects to Talk:Hang the DJ (disambiguation). Radiphus (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

  Done -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

WCLM Disambig PageEdit

OK, I'm confused where you're going here. You are asking for "concise" information, but then you remove large portions of the information on the page. You make one entry very confusing. Is the station WULT or is it WCLM? Which is it? These stations are not "in" these towns, but are licensed to these towns. In most instances, the radio station you listen to is licensed to one town, has studios in another, and has a third in it's branding. Give you an example.

WPRS-FM is licensed to Waldorf, Maryland, their studios (along with the rest of the RadioOne DC cluster) are in Silver Spring, Maryland, they brand as "DC's Station for Inspiration".

So, if you are going for "concise" information, it isn't happening here. I have been doing this (ie: Wikipedia) for a year shorter than you, but I've been studying and learning about all things radio stations since I was 6 (currently 38). Add that to the knowledge I got from many of the people here, I think I can say with certainty, "I got this". - NeutralhomerTalk • 14:05 on August 29, 2019 (UTC)

First and foremost, you have to stop removing the valid entry from the page. After that, the description in the disambiguation page is supposed to be minimal, just enough to get the reader to identify which link will lead to the encyclopedia article about the topic they were seeking. But if you will stop deleting the new entry, that will be sufficient. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
So....leave misleading information you want and it's OK with you? Well, I did that a couple days ago, thanks for looking in, since you were engaged in an edit-war. Could have thrown a 3RR, but didn't. If you are going to do this "minimal" information thing, you are going to have to go across EVERY disambig page across the project (and I'm meaning the whole of Wikipedia)....not just this one. None of these are minimal.
Also, I gave you an example, which you didn't even touch on. I would like you to. You seem to be set on making this about a station "in" a location when it's not. I'm trying to work with you and you are trying to own a page. - NeutralhomerTalk • 08:37 on September 6, 2019 (UTC)
I told you what you needed to leave there as sufficient, rather than trying to own the page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
You are repeating yourself and adding something (the OWN part) to make your case better...it isn't. You are still missing that I haven't touched the page in days and you aren't actually discussing anything. You are wanting me to compromise in a way to on suits you. Not how compromises work. You have also failed to read the licensed to/studios in/brand as example above which shows your mistake.
Now, would you like to discuss something or would you like to continue to OWN the page and ignore me, without discussing anything. The next move is taking this to AN. It's up to you. - NeutralhomerTalk • 12:51 on September 7, 2019 (UTC)

DablinksEdit

Pleasure to close the RM at Talk:Tír Eoghain, and am working with AWB to dab the links to Tyrone for you. Just a few left to do. P. I. Ellsworthed. put'r there 21:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Wight v SkyeEdit

In terms of you're argument here I'd note that the Scottish island is now at Isle of Skye but Skye still redirects to it. Although the common name of the Scottish one is "Isle of Skye" it does get called plain "Skye" relatively often (compared to Wight for the English island) something you pointed out here. I'd point out that "Wight" and "Skye" is used as a crossword clue. What if you're opinion on the Scottish island? Its clear that its primary for "Isle of Skye" but less clear for just "Skye". Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there an indication that the isle is no longer the primary topic for "Skye"? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I was just wandering what you think given that you commented on the Wight move regarding Skye. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Willy-Brandt-PlatzEdit

Sigh. A quick search on the English Wikipedia shows squares of that name in Trier, Remscheid, Wuppertal, Heilbronn ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

And if there wasn't a primary topic, then the base name should have been a disambiguation page. Since there was a primary topic, though, the primary topic should have been at the base name. There is nothing preventing the creation of a disambiguation page for the others. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
de:Willy-Brandt-Platz --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
en:Willy-Brandt-Platz, en:Willy-Brandt-Platz (disambiguation). Again, as of before I moved it, the title had a primary topic on English Wikipedia, and I merely corrected the arrangement of the articles given that state. If, instead, there had been a disambiguation page at en:Willy-Brandt-Platz instead of a malplaced redirect, I wouldn't have moved the article. Subsequent continued improvements are welcome, as always. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

KSJU article locationEdit

I didn't put that article at KSJU (Minnesota) without good reason. There is an active broadcasting station elsewhere with the KSJU call sign but no article. Please move the article back so KSJU remains a red link (or, in the interim, a redirect) and can be converted to an article on the current station with those call letters. Raymie (tc) 00:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

And I didn't move it to the base name without good reason: WP:PRECISION. Wikipedia doesn't pre-emptively disambiguate titles. Barring other encyclopedia information on Wikipedia about another KSJU, the sole Wikipedia topic article goes at the base name. If and when there's an article on another topic, then the title will become ambiguous, and the decision about which if any of the topics is the primary can be made. Moving the articles at that future time is no more difficult than moving them now. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
That's fair. I was just a bit frustrated. I'll probably have to move that article right back soon. Raymie (tc) 19:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!Edit

Happy Adminship from the Birthday Committee

Wishing JHunterJ a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!

-- PATH SLOPU 10:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


Disambiguation RM discussionEdit

Since you participated in this discussion about disambiguation pages just shy of two months ago, would you be willing to voice your thoughts on this move discussion that deals with the same issue? I believe you would have something to say about it. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:MarinerEdit

I'm seeing an obvious no consensus to move here, so I'm wondering why you have done. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I saw a consensus for move among the policy-and-guidelines-based !votes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can see, you appear to have discounted the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT !votes, which are entirely guideline-based, and listened to the editor (the nominator) who shouted the loudest. Please reconsider this close. It is clear no consensus. - Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I understand WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT: when a topic is primary for an ambiguous title, but that topic is better titled something else, the ambiguous title redirects. But the information presented showed that the topic Sailor was not the primary topic for "Mariner". -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
How so? Many links are for the Seattle Mariners, but that just proves that Mariners should probably not be a prime redirect, not that Mariner should not be. I just cannot see any evidence that there was any consensus here. Guidelines-based arguments were presented by the opposers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Having looked at this for the first time, and not participated in the discussion, I have to say I agree with Necrothesp here. This doesn't look like a clear cut consensus to move to me. The numbers in support and opposition are split, and although the opposes !votes contain less explanation than the support !votes, the onus is on those in support to make the stronger case. And I think that the premise that "mariner" refers primarily to a sailor, which is what the opposers said, is its own justification. This is pretty much the long-term significance criterion of WP:PTOPIC, and the reason why articles such as Apple and Bell are where they are despite not necessarily having the most page views. JHJ I would suggest amending this to a no-consensus close, or else relisting and giving your views as a support !vote if that's how you feel. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree relisting is a good idea, while there is a reasonable argument that "no consensus" means no primary topic, its not clear how often the alternatives provided by the supporters would be searched for with just "Mariner" similar to the arguments with Bury and Ravens. I didn't !vote in the discussion but did reply to a comment. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The supports made the stronger case, since the opposes made almost no case at all. The only case the opposes made was WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, which was misapplied. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
How was it misapplied? It was applied as it is always applied. Of course it was the "only case", since it was seen as the correct argument! It didn't need expansion. You seem to be suggesting that because the opposers didn't write as much as the proposer, the latter must be right, which is of course rubbish. I'm sorry, but it does appear that you are applying your own opinion to the close here and discounting the comments you don't agree with. If you're not going to budge here, despite being asked to by three editors, then I'm afraid we need a move review. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Move review for MarinerEdit

An editor has asked for a Move review of Mariner. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Feed forward (disambiguation)Edit

 

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Feed forward (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
  • disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
  • is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Just an FYIEdit

I wrote the article on Hans Riemer (Austrian politician). I am prepping the article Hans Riemer for deletion review. When I feel the draft is ready, I am going to move the content of "Hans Rimer" back to Hans Riemer (disambiguation), and restore the links. Thanks. --evrik (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  • @HaeB: and @PamD: I'm attempting to have the original Hans Riemer article restored. Check out: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 November 12. --evrik (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
    • There is no indication that the person from Montgomery is the Primary Topic, so the dab page needs to stay at the base name for now (or the Austrian be at the base name). PamD 16:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "JHunterJ".