User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 4

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.

Siberia (disambiguation)

Hi! Please, take a look at Siberia (disambiguation). The troll came again. Beatle Fab Four 06:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't edit war

I see you reverted first Giano, then me, at Arbuthnot without giving any reason. None in the edit summary, nothing on Talk. I can only see this as edit warring, and as taking advantage of other editors' reluctance to do the same. Please stop. I invite you to self-revert. (P. S. Explaining your addition of a See also cat isn't explaining your revert, of course.) Bishonen | talk 15:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC).

Both of those changes included the reason on the edit summary. "Arbuthnot" needs a disambiguation, which the category doesn't provide. -- JHunterJ 18:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

continued on Talk:Arbuthnot#Disambiguation or redirect to category?

Taiwanese aborigines

There's a discussion about the use of caps in the article's Talk (or perhaps archives). Caps was agreed upon. Thanks. Ling.Nut 00:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Boundedness

Thank you for the nice work at Boundedness. And I have a small style note. In math notation the variables should be italic, so x instead of x, etc. I fixed that in there. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that formatting, and for the feedback here! -- JHunterJ 20:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on AWB use

Hi, Noticed you introduced an error in the meaning of Columbia River Basalt Group while using AWB. I have used AWB myself and understand that it has value, but also know that significant damage has been done by what the AWB user considers a minor edit. The AWB Rules of Use impose the burden on user to make sure you haven't changed the meaning of an article when you are proceeding with such tools. If any doubt exists (no matter how small), the best approach is to make no change.

Happy editing - Williamborg (Bill) 17:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No error was introduced. "is comprised of" means "comprises", except that the latter is more acceptable even in instances where the former is regarded as an error. I did check that no error was introduced. See wikt:comprise or User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 3. -- JHunterJ 20:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding citations

I saw your note to SmackBot's owner. Take a look at Wikipedia:Footnotes, or let me know what citation you have for which article and I'll add it myself, so you can see at least one example of its use. Cheers! -- JHunterJ 13:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC) (<< Copied from User talk:Picapica)

At the end of the intro to the article on Wagon Train, where in my usual serendipitous way I recently ended up, there appears one of those "[citation needed]" tags which (call me licentious) never cease to strike me as somewhat self-righteous/puritanical (don't fix it : mix it). Attempting nevertheless, on this occasion, to see if I could at least remedy the situation, I got as far as coming up with --

{{cite web |url=http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/R/htmlR/roddenberry/roddenberry.htm |title=Roddenberry, Gene at The Museum of Broadcast Communications |accessdate=2007-06-04 |format= |work= }}

However, inserting the above in place of the censorious tag produced unsatisfactory results. I had clearly failed to note at least one important step in such operating instructions as I could find.

If you know the correct modus operandi then yes, please do go ahead, JHJ, and effect what I had intended to do: hopefully, I will learn from the result! Go raibh míle maith agat. Picapica 16:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC).

Alrighty, it's been added: see this diff. Ta' failte romhat! -- JHunterJ 17:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

On vit et on apprend -- as they say. Takk fyri!. -- Picapica 18:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Dō itashimashite. Tschüss!

Mystery_%28disambiguation%29

Sorry, added the wrong link. Meant to add Esoteric history, or perhaps the redirect Ancient Mysteries. Taemyr 16:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Style guide

Sorry, I wasn't even aware of it, I was just following the conventions that I found on other disambig. pages — obviously the wrong ones! I'll stick to the style guide format in future. Thanks for pointing it out. :-) Chris 42 22:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your work cleaning up the Big Red disambiguation page. mako (talk•contribs) 13:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

FAR

Isaac Asimov has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DrKiernan (talk • contribs) 14:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Dun and Brastreet, and related matters

JHunterJ. I'm a long time reader and admirer of Wikipedia, but a very very new contributor. One contribution was a link to a page of mine with Dun and Bradstreet info, especially, sources where one can access D&B info at no charge to the user. This seemed (to me) an appropriate link from a reliable source. It was removed at your behest (as far as I can tell), so I thought I'd drop a note here to ask why, and to ask what would be a more appropriate means to add content which I think would be valuable. By the way, the link is http://xooxleanswers.com/dnb.aspx, in case you want to have a look.

Thanks a lot. -- David Dsarokin 21:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Dsarokin

The page linked doesn't add to the encyclopedic knowledge about Dun & Bradstreet (as far as I could tell), it just competes with/replaces it. Take a look at Wikipedia:External links, and if you like, bring up the link on the Talk:Dun & Bradstreet page; it could be that my opinion is not the consensus opinion. -- JHunterJ 01:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Springfield

Thnx fer the cleanup after I reorganized that list a few days ago … it was around Zero-Dark-Thirty when I did it, after working on Some Other Article that quoted a suspiciously bogus number of towns named Springfield, so I linked it to that section of the article and something like, "nearly half of the states …" instead of a number, and to be honest, I never bothered to check exactly what was being linked, so I totally missed the fact that some of them were disambiguation pages. :-) Happy Editing! —72.75.70.147 00:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure! Thanks for the note -- it may be my first from an IP. :-) -- JHunterJ 01:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is no ordinary IP you're dealing with … when I encounter someone who does a follow-up after one of my longer sessions that's the same kind of WikiGnome thing that I usually do for others, I feel it only polite to render an "Attaboy!" before I MOVE ON. —72.75.70.147 (talk · contribs) 09:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Should the MoS for DAB pages be changed?

It does currently state that the see also section is the place for articles with title in the subject.

This seems to contradict other parts of the guideline. Taemyr 15:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a direct contradiction, but I know what you're talking about: people who want to include the kitchen sink in Kitchen (disambiguation) can point to it as justification, even though the other guidelines argue against the kitchen sink. I think it's been discussed before on WT:MOSDAB, but nothing came of it. -- JHunterJ 17:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

DAB cleanup.

Hi. Sorry if I am bothering you. I tied to cleanup bits, and found that this involved deleting quite a big part of the page. Could you take a look at this diff [1] and comment? (removing the dab tag was a mistake and is fixed.) Taemyr 16:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I shall. -- JHunterJ 17:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I added back the Brit series, since it was mentioned in Emily Booth article (which I've also set up to be returned to Emily Booth). I removed the trailing periods and created the redirect for Bukareshter Idishe Teater-Studie (which I tagged as Yiddish-language). I also removed the bold BITS from in front of the acronym meanings, and noted "or bits" in the intro. -- JHunterJ 17:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Edits to articles nut and nuts

You recently reverted both these pages with the reason "not in the linked article". I'm just curious, what does "not in the linked article" actually mean? JayKeaton 23:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The linked article doesn't indicate that it has anything to do with "Nut" or "Nuts". Slang definitions are, in general, better handled in the Wiktionary entry, linked in the sidebar on the dabs. (I'd rather remove the Insanity entry from Nuts, but the editors of Insanity have included a list of slang terms, which gives some credence to its inclusion in the dab.) -- JHunterJ 00:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I see. Well nuts as testicles is listed on the en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nuts page, which itself links to the testicles page. Is there any way around this, as nuts is an extremely common term for testicles, probably even more common than the word "testicles" itself, and the wiktionary nuts page simply has a link to the testicles page. It doesn't really make any sense to not include it on the nuts and nut page JayKeaton 01:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Add it to the testicles article first, to see if the editors there agree. -- JHunterJ 11:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Let me drop you the Tutnum Ribbon for your new edit count, keep it on. --Brand спойт 12:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not yet at two years' time here though, so I believe I'll have to wait to add it to my user page. -- JHunterJ 12:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Though I may award it as per WP:IAR, you had a rapid edit history :) --Brand спойт 13:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Puma "vandalism"

Re: this edit. That undid an edit of mine after I had undone the vandalism you were targeting. I wanted to check to see if you intended to undo that edit, or if I can re-make it. Thanks. -- JHunterJ 12:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You did not revert all vandalism by that user. The vandal was on a rampage, so, although I was aware of your edit, I figured you would notice by my edit summary what I was worried about and re-add your work. I have re-added it for you. Aliasd 13:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Full conversation on User talk:Aliasd/Archive 2#Puma "vandalism"

Please explain your actions

Why did you decide to remove my changes to the caller id wiki - but left others of the exact same nature in place?

(cur) (last) 00:16, 28 May 2007 JHunterJ (Talk | contribs) (17,881 bytes) (Undid revision 133953179 by 74.104.147.157 (talk) link spam)

I invite you to either restore the revision or update the whole page fairly in the same way.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.104.147.157 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I must decline your invitation to undo my change. Please see WP:SPAM#Inclusion of one spam link is not a reason to include another, and WP:EL in general. If you recognize other spam links (or any other inappropriate links) in the article, please remove them. Now that I am back from wikibreak, I will get around to checking on that article again soon too. -- JHunterJ 13:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Uncle G

After his initial revert I spoke to him on his talk page, apparently one reason is that bullet points generate less HTML, and therefore better in large discussions. User_talk:Uncle_G#indent_vs_bullet_point. Interesting point, don't you think? But I feel this may become a problem is it's continued... - Zero1328 _Talk? 02:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Elasund.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Elasund.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 16:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:TitanicKillDoctorLucky.jpg

I have tagged Image:TitanicKillDoctorLucky.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 14:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Templating

Um, I think I know I'm in an edit war. I've been around here for awhile, you know, so if you want to give me friendly reminders, please don't use templates. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not? The 3RR template alert is the easiest way to show that the user in question was aware of the policy. If you've been around here for awhile, the better solution would have been not to enter the edit war in the first place. -- JHunterJ 22:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A cursory glance at my user page and talk page should give anyone the impression that I'm an experienced user. The warning template you used is for new users. When you use it on experienced editors it can send the message--which I'm sure you didn't intend--that the user is a clueless moron who hasn't bothered to learn policy. There's an essay which touches upon this, WP:DTTR.

As for the last thing you say, "the better solution would have been not to enter the edit war in the first place," it might be helpful if you took a closer look at the dispute, including the posts on the talk page, to see how the edit war developed, and who instigated it. By doing so, you might help solve the dispute. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't try to ascertain your experience here -- WP:TTR counters WP:DTTR (neither of which was I aware of when I left the message first). I am aware of the dispute and have commented on the talk page myself, and (as it happens) I agree with the version as you've tried to create it -- but it is always on that version when I get there, so I have not had the opportunity to undo the other editor's edits myself, since you are in an edit war. As an experienced user and admin, you are no doubt aware of other avenues of addressing the problem, rather than edit warring. (I felt I should leave the 3RR on both editors' talk pages, since both had reverted three times.) -- JHunterJ 23:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

JHunterJ, I've read WP:TTR, and I thoroughly disagree with it. :) I guess I'll just say that if you have the need to warn me in the future (I hope you don't), I'd prefer a personalized message to a template. Anyway, as for addressing the dispute, I may start an article RfC if things continue on in this vein, but if you have the chance, I'd appreciate it if you noted your opinion at Talk:Tiamat. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess DreamGuy didn't like it either--[2]. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If I leave any more messages on your Talk page, I will do so without the aid of templates. :-) (Maybe "established editors" who dislike templates should include a note to that effect at the top of their Talk pages, and link to DTTR -- or acknowledge that they are aware of 3RR/other policy and waive any guideline that suggests they be warned explicitly.) -- JHunterJ 10:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

RegExes

Thanks for straightening out my RegEx typo fixes. What does the '?:' mean? I can't find it documented in any of the articles about RegExes. Colonies Chris 10:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Normally anything inside parentheses gets captured (available for use in the $1, $2, etc.), bits in the replacement. The ?: makes its set of parentheses non-capturing. I added a note about it to the Typo Talk page. http://www.regular-expressions.info/brackets.html goes into more detail. -- JHunterJ 11:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Query about Hunger (disambiguation)

I noticed that you do quite a bit of editing involving disambig pages, so I thought I'd ask your opinion about my cleanup of Hunger (disambiguation). Too much? Any constructive critiques appreciated. One thing that occurred to me is that perhaps hungry and hunger strike ought to have their own dab pages. --ShelfSkewed Talk 21:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a thing of beauty! I did comment out one more thing (the redlinked film) and restored the song "Hungry", since that seemed to be the only real candidate for a dab page on Hungry by itself. But thanks for the heavy lifting! -- JHunterJ 22:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I may come back for another critique or two, if that's okay. -- (the Ohio-born) ShelfSkewed Talk 22:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. We'll have a Ohio Dabber club. :-) -- JHunterJ 12:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Speed films

[Bringing over from [[User talk:Habj] It's acceptable to have pages like Speed (film) and Speed (2007 film) without adding further disambiguation to the former, particularly when one film (or album, song, novel, etc.) is much more generally known. See, for example, Adventure (album) and Adventure (Furslide album). (I'll watch this page for any replies.) Cheers! -- JHunterJ 21:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I could argue that what film is "much more generally known" is cultural bias, and nothing else. And I will, on that article talk! and then I leave it there for now. // habj 21:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because the more generally known subject happens to be the American film doesn't make it cultural bias. See yet another example: Anand (film) and Anand (2004 film). Perhaps a hatnote on Speed (film) would be an acceptable solution here as well. -- JHunterJ 22:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful straw man. // habj 22:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. How is that a straw man? -- JHunterJ 22:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Besides, the discussion is at Talk: Speed (film), not here. // habj 22:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be a discussion here as well. -- JHunterJ 22:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL! // habj 22:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hilary (disambiguation)

I've nominated Hilary (disambiguation), an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Hilary (disambiguation) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilary (disambiguation) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Hilary (disambiguation) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Coren 00:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Affect as noun

It's not common, but it's in Merriam-Webster and dictionary.com. I've heard it mainly from medicos here in the US, as in "The patient displayed a flat affect."--BillFlis 13:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link -- I've removed my addition from the Typo fixes. -- JHunterJ 13:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Question about human name dabs

This question concerns two disambig guidelines: (1) a disambig page should not include a red link unless the editor is confident that the subject is notable enough for an article, but (2) red links should be included for items that link to the disambig page without any of the available options in mind. The page I've been working on is Dave Johnson. All the red-linked names fit guideline (2)--that is, each is linked, in an article, to Dave Johnson, but is not one of the blue-link Dave Johnsons. But some of them are not really notable: the comic-book artist, probably yes; the minor-league ice hockey player, the Survivor contestant, and the two software guys, probably no. So what's the best way to handle this? Leave the non-notable red links? Or go to the articles in which they are linked and unlink them? Or something else? As before, any advice welcome... --ShelfSkewed Talk 02:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have unlinked incoming dab links before, but I don't think I've done this for people links. In this case (people being what we are), I'd leave the entries redlinked with a blue link to their article that links to Dave Johnson. If you were feeling particularly industrious, you could update that article's link to a dab page to a redlink to the same dabbed title. All the redlinks should be moved below all the entries with bluelinked title articles. -- JHunterJ 11:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I think I may try some of each: leave a couple of the red links & add the same red link to the article, and also unlink a couple of the very obscure ones and see what happens.

On another subject, do you think we need the dab page for Halloween (song) separate from Halloween (disambiguation)? --ShelfSkewed Talk 02:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

On the last, see the new topic WT:D#Incomplete parenthetical disambiguations -- JHunterJ 11:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if I'm going to be serious about doing this well, I should read up and keep up. WT:D is now on my watchlist, and I'll scan through the archives as well. Thanks again...again. --ShelfSkewed Talk 02:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Boston

If you can, care to add some text to the disambiguation page, or one of the Lincs. pages to provide some context as to how the two are related? It's especially not clear as you have the borough as a subset of the town, despite the former having a much larger population. --Belg4mit 00:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I sub-bulleted it since it appeared to be a less likely target than the city it contained (since there's been no hue and cry about the borough getting the base name). Someone looking for either of the entries should be able to get there, which is all the disambiguation page really needs to do. (Right?) -- JHunterJ 00:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you've implied a hierarchal relationship. That was my point. -- Belg4mit 00:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A hierarchical relationship of likelihood, not size. I might have done something similar with:

• Los Angeles, California
  • Los Angeles County, California

or anywhere the encompassing entity is the less-likely target. -- JHunterJ 00:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Meh. At least those are related. Best as I can tell, the Bostons ain't. --Belg4mit 00:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh. "Its council is based in the town of Boston." (from Boston (borough)) Does that suffice then? -- JHunterJ 00:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, how'd I miss that? Sure. Of course if any (non-Alaskan) American looks too closely it'd raise some questions, given that in order for the populations of the two to be correct, and even what that sentence implies: in the UK a borough is a superset of a town?! And the borough node states that this canbe, but they've gone ande made things much messier on that side of the pond. --Belg4mit 01:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Shane Hagadorn

Is now unbundled. Darrenhusted 00:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. There's no Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamie Sheffield, though; did you intend for there to be? -- JHunterJ 00:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a strike through is fine though if you want to repost your vote under my last comment and when the other editors have re-edited their comments (so they no longer refer to the bundle) then you can delete your comment. Darrenhusted 01:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Baseball player naming conventions

Thanks for your input into the proposed naming convention for baseball players (made either here or here... or both). Hopefully, the final tweak has been made to the proposed guidelines. If you get a chance, please review them here and add any comments/suggestions/feedback on the talk page. If there are no major issues, we'll put this thing to a straw poll in a few days, and if successful will then submit for inclusion on WP:NC. Thanks again, Caknuck 04:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Boston (disambiguation)

1. Call it a metonym or synecdoche if you want, but I refuse to acknowledge this bogus split of tightly coupled meanings across two collections of graphemes (which are homophones no less).
2. Fvcking wikipedia policy should not be held as dogma. U.S. is hardly ever written anymore, in any event it was removed for aesthetics (mixed UK and U.S. is ugly).
3. What pray tell is wrong with pulling Greater Boston into the header? It's a nice way of giving it higher priority than Lincs., while still having Lincs. be the first alternative on the list. As a bonus, it relates better to the preceding phrase about the capitol. --Belg4mit 00:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Take up the proposed changes on the Talk:Boston (disambiguation) page (or perhaps Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (abbreviations)]] for the U.S. bit) and see if editorial consensus is with you. I'm only holding the guidelines as guidelines. The problem with pulling Greater Boston into the header is that there's no real reason to -- someone looking for it will find it in the list, and someone familiar with dab pages will find it more quickly in the list than in the header. (See also Los Angeles (disambiguation)). I don't know that it should have higher priority than Lincolnshire, but it seems reasonable. -- JHunterJ 10:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should give some insight about the original Boston since some people might be curious about its toponym. Hence adding in "(the original Boston)" Reginmund 19:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Dabs aren't articles; curious people can go to the linked articles for more information, and in this case, the Lincolnshire location could be linked from the Massachusetts location's article, as its toponym. -- JHunterJ 21:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Valencia

on what do you base your rather odd arrangement? --emerson7 | Talk 06:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOSDAB. Articles that are "Valencia (X)", articles that are more likely to be searched as "Valencia" (fruit, ship, FCs), articles that have "Valencia" in the title (song, racing circuits), articles that are titled with synonyms for Valencia (Catalan dialect), and finally Valencias that are not subjects of their own articles but mentioned on other articles (novel). -- JHunterJ 10:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Kelly Johnson

Thanks, in turn, for reformatting the disambiguation page correctly. I was unaware that I was failing to follow proper standard form. Nice to work with you. TealCyfre0 23:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:D

I was using this discussion as the example. Why is it needed if it even says "WP:D" redirects here at the top? Lord Sesshomaru

WP:D is very commonly used as a shortcut for disambiguation (and is an initialism for it). People looking for the shortcuts look in the shortcuts list, not in the hatnotes. (And this one doesn't suffer from the VOTE/POLL problem.) -- JHunterJ 00:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Which shortcut do you find least useful? The point is, three of them bloat the box. Two should be the norm. Lord Sesshomaru

Why should two be the norm? (The box does not appear to be bloated to me, but that will vary based on screen resolution, etc.) -- JHunterJ 00:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You're claiming that three should be the standard, regardless? Lord Sesshomaru

No, I'm asking why you're claiming that two should be the norm. -- JHunterJ 00:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Because a sysop had confirmed that with me earlier, as seen in the link I provided. Are you really against it so much that I should take it to the talk page? Or may I proceed in reverting you? Lord Sesshomaru

Yes, you should take it to the talk page, since you're advocating a change that hasn't been discussed. -- JHunterJ 10:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Turk

It was the long lasting format covering every single item related to topic "Turk". You can check thru the history... SEY01 12:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Continued on Talk:Turk -- JHunterJ 13:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I am supposed to make supplements on this final page then... SEY01 13:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Paxton Township

Thanks for trying to make Paxton Township, Ross County, Ohio simpler, but the standard for Ohio townships is that they have the county name, regardless of how many such townships there are in the state. It's somewhat like having the state listed for US towns and counties: just as the town and the county are a subdivision of the state and have the state listed, regardless of whether there's another one nationwide, the township is a part of the county and needs to have its name listed, regardless of whether there's another one statewide. Thanks though! Nyttend 03:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked for some indication of this standard, and I couldn't find it. Where is this guideline? -- JHunterJ 10:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Found it. Topic raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ohio townships#Settlement naming convention, since I prefer the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements). -- JHunterJ 11:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Boston (disambiguation)

In the case of putting the primary topic at the top, why not discuss what "Boston" actually means and the history of the toponym? Reginmund 01:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Because disambiguations aren't articles. -- JHunterJ 11:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mars

Hi JHunterJ. I could replace the links to the departments with links to the lists of communes of these departments, which mention the red-linked communes, but I think that links to the departments would be more useful to the reader. Cheers, Korg (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

But then the reader is going to click through the blue link and be surprised to find no information on "Mars" there. -- JHunterJ 23:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Chi-Chi

Um, why should pipelinks be avoided and redirects be necessary? I don't see any mention to that on WP:DAB. Is there something I've overlooked? Lord Sesshomaru

WP:DAB points to Main article: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), which discusses avoiding pipelinks and using redirects that match the dab's title vs. direct links that don't in the WP:MOSDAB#Piping section. (BTW, it doesn't raise my eyebrows any, but I did recently see one editor take exception to another because of the use of "um" and "uh" at the beginning of talk page comments. Seems trivial to me, but forewarned...) -- JHunterJ 02:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand, are you implying something suspicious of me? Also, why not use the redirect Chichi instead of Chi-Chi (Dragon Ball)? Lord Sesshomaru

Nope, just letting you know that starting off with "Um" may not be a great idea, because apparently some other editors take it the wrong way; I'm not suspicious of you for it, just thought you might like to know. Chichi would be fine instead of Chi-Chi (Dragon Ball), but then again, Chi-Chi (Dragon Ball) works instead of Chichi too. -- JHunterJ 03:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

So from my understanding, all disambiguation pages must have redirects in each given example? This goes for all disambiguation pages such as Kuwabara, Chi-Chi, Tucker and Shane. Is that about correct? Lord Sesshomaru

They don't have to have redirects if no redirects are applicable. But if the choice is between redirects that match the dab's title vs. direct links, the redirect should be chosen. Piping should not be used for an entry, although it's OK in the description for an entry (if the entry doesn't have a blue link itself). -- JHunterJ 11:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll use this discussion as the reason for my new WP:DAB changes from here on. Lord Sesshomaru

Pardon me for kibitzing, but one such WP:DAB change caught my attention, and brought me here. That page on disambigs tells us Piping means concealing the actual title of a linked article by replacing it with other text, typically to suppress parenthetical expressions. / Do not pipe the name of the links to the articles being listed. I see what the writer has (writers have) in mind. But in a recent edit, Sesshomaru has interpreted it (together with comments in this user talk page) to justify switches in name order, such as that from [[Kineo Kuwabara]] to [[Kuwabara Kineo]] (which which I'm all in favor) but also from [[Bruce Kuwabara]] to [[Kuwabara Bruce]]. Though I can't be sure, I'd guess that Bruce has hardly ever, if ever, been addressed or referred to as "Kuwabara Bruce" or 「桑原ブルース」; listing him in this way seems very odd. So how about [[Bruce Kuwabara|Kuwabara, Bruce]]? That doesn't look bizarre, seems to be in the spirit of what's written in the about-DABs page, and results in a list that's easy to scan. -- Hoary 03:08, 21 July 2007, tweaked 03:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Kuwabara is a surname list, not a disambiguation page (and I've made an edit to change that). There's Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy for those, and in particular I think piping for name order display is acceptable on lists of people by name. (Or the creation of a Kuwabara, Bruce redirect would work as well, but isn't needed.) -- JHunterJ 11:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Would someone mind taking a gander at Toriyama? I didn't know about a surname page, so perhaps this fall to that criteria? Lord Sesshomaru

I gandered, and made a similar change there. -- JHunterJ 23:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks man. I'll look you up if needed, and I'll use Toriyama as a precedent for differentiating such pages. Lord Sesshomaru

A song dab question

Hi--me again. A quick question: Previously Floods (song) by Pantera was the only articled song by that title. Now we also have Floods (Fightstar song). Do I leave the Pantera dab at (song) alone, or should it now be (Pantera song), with Floods (song) becoming a redirect—to Flood (disambiguation)#Music—from an incomplete disambiguation?--ShelfSkewed Talk 20:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Floods (song) should probably remain the article for the Pantera song, and no song dab is needed. The alternative, making Floods (song) a redirect to Flood (disambiguation) and updating all the current links to Floods (song) to go to Floods (Pantera song) instead, is workable too, but is more work with (IMO) insufficient added benefit. And there may be a case for making it a move request first too. -- JHunterJ 21:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds sensible: I'll leave it alone. Thanks!--ShelfSkewed Talk 23:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Y (Disambiguation)

I was just wondering why you did not include "In World War II, Y referred to a listening service headquartered at Beaumanor Hall." in your page style repair on 16 June 2007? Snub dodecahedron 03:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It appeared to be known as Y Group or Y station rather than just Y. -- JHunterJ 11:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Big Brother

Please do not edit Big Brother. ps second life big brother was not a tv show as it was over the internet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by In23065 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC) (UTC)

"Please do not edit"? This is Wikipedia. Please familiarize yourself with the manual of style for disambiguation pages, WP:MOSDAB. -- JHunterJ 19:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This discussion maintained on current talk page after archiving