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.
I would be more worried if you are a closer of the above discussion. For all its worth, please improve the consensus if you can. --George Ho (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: if you are the closer of this discussion, and I found arguments not meeting your closure rationale, I may have someone uninvolved take a look at the discussion, okay? --George Ho (talk) 03:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get you. Look at Talk:All That Jazz#Move? (2), which is getting full of supporters and well-influential arguments, especially Noetica, and was re-requested shortly after your closure. If you want to prove supporters wrong, I would love to hear more from you there. --George Ho (talk) 10:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get you either. There are mechanisms for reviewing move requests, or complaining about other users. Your approach is neither of those, so those aren't OK. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That phrase is a mere advisory. It says that bringing it up again can (or may) be disruptive (or risky); it implies a risk of disruption, but it doesn't say that I'm forbidden to make a recent re-proposal. To reject a recent re-proposal:
As a practical matter, "according to consensus" or "violates consensus" are weak reasons for rejecting a proposal; instead, the reasons for objecting should be explained, followed with discussion on the merits of the proposal.
Seriously, if you want to ask me if it's OK, it is as long as you use the channels other than disruptively re-requesting a move right after it has been closed. If you don't want to listen to my answers, please stop asking me questions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Almost forgot, Anthony copied-and-pasted my message from his talk page as part of re-proposal in "All That Jazz", and that's logical, as I could not figure why logical support arguments were disregarded, while the only one opposed vote with flimsy evidence and dubious argument is used as a closure. All I did was using "talkquote" template to make the quote format beautifully. See the talk page history if you don't believe me. --George Ho (talk) 11:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Watkin Tudor Jones requested move
Greetings, I am a bit disturbed by the move of Watkin Tudor Jones to Ninja. I am shocked by the hollowness and lack of any thought or input to the process, perhaps this is a flaw in Wikipedia's process, but not having dealt with page moves before I do not quite understand it yet. Neither the WTJ page nor its talk page was notified about this move, and hence there was seemingly no input given. At most there should be a redirect page from Ninja (south african rapper) --> watkin tudor jones, but the article should not be named for this one character. The diversity of his output and chaaracters should be obvious in either a read of the page itself, or a read of the talk page; Ninja for instance would be unlikely to do corporate training rap as Max Normal did, or create short videos on how to sew cute fluffy toys. Ninja is but _one_ character Watkin Tudor Jones has taken on in his diverse and extensive career. While this current output under the band Die Antwood has received significant international attention, it is most likely not going to be the end of his creative output, and he is likely to transform himself yet again in the future. Furthermore, it is likely that it is not the only psueudonym he is currently using; DJ Hi-Tek, for example, is a fictional member of the band sometimes portrayed by different characters and on-the-road djs, but it is likely that some if not all of the in-the-studio input attributed to this character comes from Watkin himself. If you cannot simply revert the requested move, or initiate whatever procedure is necessary to make it officially happen yourself, please let me know the process to make this happen. Thanks Centerone (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm ok, it looks like you weren't the one who did the initial move, but made a correction in the move. Apparently, also, by the time I got done typing the above, another wikipedian reverted the initial move itself. I'm still curious about the process however and would hope it is changed as to seek more consensus and input. thanks. Centerone (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The initial move was mine. See WP:RM for the process. The move was requested on Talk:Watkin Tudor Jones, so anyone watching the page would have seen it. Since there was no objection raised (input was given, in the request itself), the move was carried out. I've reopened the discussion. When entering new processes, perhaps letters other that "WTF" would be more appropriate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My heart may not be able to take the shock, after addressing several other problematic requests with less appreciative response. Thanks, Nick! -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to trouble you, quick query on this change, shouldn't all instances of "Osho" in the main body of the article be changed to "Rajneesh"? as in "In 1981, Rajneesh relocated to the United States..." instead of "Osho relocated..." this would be consistent with many of the sources cited in the article, and with scholarly sources more widely. Would such a change be appropriate? --Semitransgenictalk.18:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's mandatory, but I don't think it's necessarily problematic. It could be done boldly, and if reverted, consensus built on the talk page as usual. How's that for a lot of words signifying nothing? :-) Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know it looks tempting, until you look at the fact that while there is a lot of legacy literature from the 1970s and 1980s that uses the old name, present-day writing does not. If you look at the Times of India, the ratio is 1000 to 1. 26,600 for Osho, 9 for Shree Rajneesh. Article naming guidelines ask us to use current names, not former ones. --JN46600:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I named the page Comparative Religion (Frank Byron Jevons book) the way I did because there are several other books called "Conflict Resolution", so I figured a more precise title was worth doing from the start, so that we don't have to rename when others come along. What's the value in renaming at this point? Also recall I don't have admin access, so I can't just delete/rename pages, so I try to name pages in a way that doesn't require renaming again in the future. --KarlB (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRECISION and WP:NCB go with precision as needed, not precision from the start. It's easy enough to rename them when others come along, the qualified title would just use the author's last name (Comparative Religion (Jevons book)), and if they are created in that order anyone (admin or no) can perform the move since the target either won't exist or won't have any history other than redirecting to the shorter title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should have notified you earlier about The Boys in the Band. When I read the message, I proposed a move because the movie is derived from the play. In your closure, you stated that views are interpretted correctly. However, there are possibilities that can be ignored. Talk:All That Jazz (film)#Move? (2) proves it; someone mentioned in Talk:Lovin' You#Move discussion II that the previous closure could be possibly inconclusive to the consensus. The hatnotes were ignored for The End of the Innocence right before the dab page change. The numbers for the song steadily increased, and the numbers for the album steadily decreased from the former name. I wonder why it is not relisted. --George Ho (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, don't assume bad faith. I'm not "taking anything out" on Noetica. "Accuracy" is not defined as "agreeable to you" (or to Noetica); I close moves as accurately, precisely, and correctly as I can, regardless of who's participating in them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I explain it the usual way: I read the discussion and closed it based on the discussion and actual Wikipedia guidelines. You happen to disagree with it and found a sympathetic ear, but that doesn't sully my reputation. Apparently you can still have concerns despite the evidence of my helpfulness. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you would rather improve the consensus of move request. If you become a closer of this request, there will be concerns about that. --George Ho (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarification: I have no concerns if you have concerns about which admin closes move requests you hope get closed one way or the other. I am not going to involve myself in move requests that I am otherwise not watching just because you would like me to be involved so that I cannot be the closer. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you post the request to "improve the consensus" on the talk page of every user of Wikipedia? Please stop wasting my time with pointless pre-warnings about your "concerns" of my adminship. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked George to back off and get the opinion of his mentors in regards to his interactions with you, because were it me... well, you've been quite patient. AniMate17:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. It's because I included an external link in my long closing comment, and the template craps out on it. I'll fix it this afternoon. Thanks for letting me know. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL(at myself)! Thanks for that. I've been tearing what little hair I have left out trying to work out why I couldn't find anything useful. It reminds me of that oldie: "On a clear disk, you can seek forever". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The redundancy isn't bad redundancy. The succession boxes provide different navigation than the templates. Why are you deleting them? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Navigation is a user process, not a data collection: click on the game to the left or right to go to the next or previous game in succession (succession box) vs. click on "show", squint through the smaller print/longer list of all such game, click on the one you're seeking (navbox). -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You just introduced the word "difficult". What I said was "different". Is reading (or civility) really that difficult for you? -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User space essays are not good reasons to edit contrary to Wikipedia-space guidelines. Just creates additional work. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then the intentions are good. For it to help the encyclopedia as a guidelines (as opposed to a WP:IGNORE specific instance), though, you'll need to find that it fits with consensus on how to help the encyclopedia. Otherwise, you're just creating additional work when your deliberate differences with the current guidelines have to be revisited and fixed. WT:D would be a good place to propose changes to those current guidelines if the new guidelines would better help the encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perth
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Hi JHunterJ. I overturned your close at Perth, Western Australia. The result of that discussion was very clearly no consensus, and I don't think you gave any good reasoning for such a close in your close summary (which indeed sounded more like a support "vote"). I understand this is probably a little annoying, but decision-making like that causes more annoyance more generally. Hope you understand, 'tis nothing personal. Best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Deacon of Pndapetzim. My closing comments were not a vote, but a summary of the applicable guidelines brought up in the discussion. If you ignore WP:NOTVOTE and simply count heads, yes, there appears to be no consensus, but if you read the text and discard the ones that do not line up with Wikipedia guidelines and policies (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WP:RMCI), there move was indicated. And you've left the move closed as pages moved with my closing comments; you should reopen the discussion or close it as no consensus with your own explanation of how that fits with the Wikipedia guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
J, there is clearly no consensus on the discussion; that's not head-counting, that's reading the discussion. If you wanted to express your opinion on the topic like you've done, you should be taking part in the discussion, not closing. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
D, if I wanted to express my opinion, I would have taken part in the discussion. Instead, I closed it by reading the discussion and applying the applicable guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review is neither a policy or process, it has yet to be reviewed by the community. Clearly what should happen is that JHunterJ should reverse his actions including the closure and let the community continue its discussion as no consensus has yet been reached. If your interested please look through the move arguments that happend with Elizabeth II it took the community a long time to agree to the move but when it did it was very clear that it had consensus, Perth has had a lot of discussion but it has never reached anything that can be considered clear to all. Gnangarra03:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Perth wheel war and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Before your change, "WLED" had a primary topic (the station) and the link was used by a tiny number of articles, and the other topic (white light-emitting diodes) was not mentioned as "WLEDs" on that article. Since there didn't seem to be any reason to change the primary topic from the station (even after I added information to the diode article to include the WLED part), I restored the redirect to the station and added a hatnote there. The experience for the reader is now:
seek station, enter "WLED", reach station
seek diode, enter "WLED", click on hatnote, reach diode
vs.
seek station, enter "WLED", click on station in dab, reach station ("farther away")
seek diode, enter "WLED", click on diode in dab, reach diode (same "distance" away)
Thanks for fixing the Ant & Cleo dab page. I didn't see those spelled out well on the MoS page (maybe because I was looking thru it too quickly). Is there another page where there is a good example of the preferred layout. I only ask because when I am done with this project Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Vandalism by 201.19.*.* it looks like the wikignome in me could be put to good use cleaning up those dab pages that need it. If there isn't a good spot please don't worry about it and thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk02:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOSDAB is the place alright, but I've been meaning to set aside some time to rewrite it for better clarity (I don't know if I can take the drama to do so though). There's also a dons and don'ts list, WP:DDD. And yes, the dab cleaning list can certainly benefit from a good gnome. Cheers -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you're taking care of the incoming links, so I have no other issue with retargetting it. I never thought it was a good fit myself; I prefer WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first ArbCom; can you point out the appropriate instruction that makes this different than other comment areas? Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Workshop: "Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments." as opposed to, e.g., Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Evidence's "The Arbitration Committee expects that all rebuttals of other evidence submissions will be included in your own section and will explain how the evidence is incorrect.", but the Workshop page is not the Evidence page. In the workshop, shouldn't replies be placed appropriately for dialogue? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an ArbCom workshop - not any other common area; perhaps you ought to read the guide to arbitration link given to you already. I also note that despite the fact this is the first time you are participating in this type of setup, and despite the fact you are a party to this case, you still made the reversion; that sort of exercise of judgment is considered ill-considered. I have asked the case clerk to revert your edit, though it may be more ideal if you self-reverted before he does. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And yet Wikipedia:Arbitration guide#Evidence: "Editors are expected to edit only within their own section on the evidence page." OTOH, Wikipedia:Arbitration guide#Workshop: "The Workshop subpage allows the parties, the community and the Arbitrators to analyze the evidence, offer suggestions about possible final decision proposals, and receive feedback. [...] Although each workshop proposal includes space for comments by the Arbitrators, parties, and others, the workshop is not a vote, nor is it a debate. Casting a "vote" of support for your favorite proposals is less informative than a brief comment of why you think it is a good proposal, while getting into an argument with the other party in the case is less useful to the Arbitrators than a concise explanation of why you agree or disagree with a proposal. Extended discussions should be taken to the talk page." I was offering a comment on your comment, not on your proposal, so the guidelines may need to be clarified if they intend some sort of prohibition there. But I have moved my comment to the talk page instead. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a Move review of Big. 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. George Ho (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Karl.brown/Johnny1 (disambiguation), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.
If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evi
Hi JHunter, can i ask why you don't count "Evi, a Biblical figure and one of the five Midianite kings killed during the time of Moses" as a person with the given name on the Evi disambig page? Thanks and have a nice day Jenova2008:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because "Evi, a Biblical figure" has only the one name, so he's ambiguous with the title Evi. The rest have a surname to go with their given name, and aren't known by (or expected to be found in an encyclopedia under), so they would normally be listed only in an article about the given name. Until that article gets created, we go ahead and list them on the dab page, even though they're partial title matches. See MOS:DABNAME. We could move them to Evi (given name) and put that name article in the main list. Also, entry links aren't piped to hide the qualifiers (they're only piped if the full name needs special formatting). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like doing disambiguation pages and creating new ones. Could you find the time to point out the appropriate policies for me since i am looking to create some more disambiguation pages and you appear well knowledgeable in this area. Thanks again Jenova2012:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for these, they're very informative. I have since created the Gnap disambiguation page. Thanks and have a nice day Jenova2018:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jenova20 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Oh i'm not ungrateful at all if that's the impression i gave. I appreciate the hard work you put in there and it helps as i can use it as a template for other disambiguation pages. I've been missing tidbits that you, with more experience are showing me and as you've seen i possibly add more info than is needed to entries, including dates where they're not always useful. So enjoy the cookie and i'll put my new template to use with my next disambig page =D Thanks again Jenova2021:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good, i'm glad. I'm quite active so drop me a talk page message if you ever need anything (it's mostly used for moaning and complaints unlike yours =P) Have a nice day/night Jenova2021:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Black caviar
WP:NOTBROKEN just says redirects are better than piping. I didn't see anything in WP:DABREDIR that's relevant. Listing "black caviar" misleads readers into thinking that this is a type of caviar, when it is a redundancy. Kauffner (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Linking to a redirect can also be helpful when the redirect contains the disambiguated term". The reader has reached Black Caviar somehow, and if they didn't intend the horse, "black caviar" is a better match for what they're seeking than "caviar". -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You want to confirm the reader's misconception? That's the opposite of informing them. And what about the next sentence: "The above example of a redirect is only appropriate because James Carrey is indicated as a name in the lead section of the Jim Carrey article." "Black caviar" isn't given in the lede of the caviar article. We could make "Black caviar" a redirect to the section that actually mention black caviar: #REDIRECTCaviar#Cultural_references. Kauffner (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation pages are navigational aids, so they acknowledge (or confirm) misconceptions as much as {{R from misspelling}} and {{confused}} do. If "black caviar" is a bad redirect for "caviar", we should delete or retarget it (such as to the section, sure). -- JHunterJ (talk)
FoF ordering
Just a thought (and deliberately putting it to talk page rather than clogging the venue), but should the FoF proposals be in chronological order? Orderinchaos06:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any recommended orderings. I went in reverse chrono, or in order of severity, because each admin action reversal was more unnecessary than the last. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Significance of various William Woodhouses
William Woodhouse page was/is/will be/has been about a cricketer. I think should it be a disambiguation page or devoted to William Woodhouse the artist, who has a contemporary significance that William Woodhouse the cricketer does not. Here is the evidence:
1. If you search for "William Woodhouse" on Google, the first page brings up references to the artist and paintings by him. These paintings are still on display in art galleries and still being sold as originals and in reproduction.
3. The Google auto-complete offers to add things like "artist" and "paintings sale" to "William Woodhouse". It does this because people in 2012 are searching for information on William Woodhouse the artist. They are not searching for information on William Woodhouse the cricketer.
4. Art is interesting and important to far more people in far more countries than cricket. William Woodhouse painted subjects, such as dogs and other animals, that appeal to people not otherwise interested in fine art.
If you disagree that William Woodhouse the cricketer lacks contemporary significance, I would like to see your reasons. I do not believe he merits the status of "primary topic" for this name. I cannot see any way at all that he was ever more important than William Woodhouse the artist.
I don't know anything about either topic. But cut-and-paste moves are bad (note left on your talk page), and your actions left the disambiguation page WP:MALPLACED. You may or may not have a conflict of interest, but you can use requested move process to see if there is consensus for the rearrangement, and then an admin can move the page(s) correctly. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for getting hold of the wrong end of the stick, and thanks for explaining the position. I will ask to have my inept editing cleaned up. Mwrcwmmw (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not against your position, I am neutral
Hi, JHunterJ. In our discussion in WT:TITLE, please consider that I am not really against your position. I mean, I am not saying that parenthetical disambiguation should be always preferred. I am only saying that WP:PRECISION should be neutral.
Please, let's trust the wiseness of editors. Guided by WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, and strengthened by WP:Consensus, which are their bible, editors are likely to take the right decision for each specific case. It is not wise to force them to always prefer prosaic disambiguation, although this is in some cases the correct decision. That's excessively rigid. We need a slightly greater flexibility to reach optimal results. Not total flexibility, of course (editors still need to reach consensus, taking into account WP:PRECISION and WP:NAMINGCRITERIA)
For instance, I would support prosaic disambiguation for:
Doesn't that help us to reach a consensus? I provided convincing examples about the fact that a too rigid policy is not always wise in this case. I am not asking for a revolution. Just a small adjustment, which has already been adopted (without my help) in WP:DAB. Paolo.dL (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We may disagree then. I have no problem if WP:PRECISION continues its current non-neutral preference for natural disambiguation ahead of parenthetical disambiguation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about my lack of attention here; I have been preoccupied with an ArbCom. So, without looking, yeah, bold edits in line with rough consensus sound fine. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence
For your involvement, diligence and dedication in participating with every level of disambiguation, and for tackling the toughest of problems with a careful eye.
