User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 29

Archive 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.

RPG BLPs (part 2)

A little progress was made on Ari Marmell today: [1] BOZ (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey J, just checking in. I'm just wondering if you've been busy, or if you've lost interest in this project. Just let me know. BOZ (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking the lack of response to mean that you're busy; no worries and no rush, just get to it when you can - the 'pedia will be here for a good long time and none of these are emergency cases. Thanks for all you have done so far!  :) BOZ (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on Allen Varney! As usual, when you get them, you get them well.  :) BOZ (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J, got anything new for these guys? :) BOZ (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

21

I thought there was a general consensus against nn (disambiguation) pages, after 8 and 9 were created against a clear consensus, but never really fixed. It appears I was wrong. Sorry, although "clean up" is still not appropriate. "Move to 21 (disambiguation)" or "Already in 21 (disambiguation)" would have made it clear what you were doing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, although full revert of the improvement was not appropriate, even if it wasn't clear to you why it was being cleaned up. 21 (number) has been tagged for excessive examples since March 2010, and the hatnote for the disambiguation page has been there since February 2011. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving RP to Randomized polynomial time

I don't really think RP_(complexity) should have been moved to Randomized polynomial time. All the other complexity classes are named by their common name, like RP, NP, PSPACE or AC0. Their common name is the initialism. Most research papers on complexity classes won't even spell out the full name of the class. (Same objection to moving RL, of course.) --Robin (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed the full name was also commonly used, although not as commonly as RP, and applied WP:PRECISION: "If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit, not as commonly as the preferred but ambiguous title." Since it's not commonly used (and I'll take your word for it), I'll revert my moves. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I guess a case could be made using WP:PRECISION that we should rename articles on complexity classes to their full names. Since some full names are very obscure, this would may have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. For now it's probably easiest to maintain consistency with the other articles and just name them with the more common initialism with parenthetical disambiguation. --Robin (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Durham-UNH

Hey, just wanted to let you know I moved Durham–UNH back to Durham-UNH (Amtrak station). Transit system station names are a weird exception to WP:PRECISION. Because station names are usually based on a) a town/city, b) a street, or c) a landmark, they almost always need to be disambiguated. Most systems, including Amtrak, use the parenthetical on all stations to make linking easier; even those like New London Union Station where it's unambiguous have New London (Amtrak station) as a redirect.

Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't an exception to WP:PRECISION. If almost all of them need qualifiers, then almost all of them should get qualifiers. The ones, however few they are, that do not need qualifiers should not get qualifiers. Right, redirects (like the one I left) make the links just as easy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lowbidgee Floodplain

Hi JHunterJ – I have reverted your latest edit to Lowbidgee Floodplain as you seem to be unaware of the scope of the Birds Project, which covers not only taxon articles but many others concerning birds. The article does come within the scope of the project as it is an article about an Important Bird Area (IBA), and thus about bird conservation, and its capitalisation of bird names reflects this. It is an ornithological article – in the sense of being a scientific article about birds – as the methodology used in identifying IBAs is scientific. If you have objections to the use of the bird project convention on capitalisation of bird names on articles other than bird taxa, then please take it up on the Bird Project talk page. Thanks. Maias (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not that. You seem to be unaware of the broader consensus on capitalization. "Coming within the scope of" is not the same as "is an ornithology article" as described in WP:FAUNA: that is, an article about a bird. I am already discussing (again) the problems with some Birds Project members' interpretation of their essay as overriding the broader consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization). You are welcome to join there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

This edit struck me as very odd: 14:13, 17 October 2012‎ JHunterJ (talk | contribs)‎ . . (497,596 bytes) (+439)‎ . . (Undid revision 518317649 by Apteva (talk) do not remove other users' contributions) (rollback: 1 edit | undo)

Since when is it appropriate to use a guideline talk page to make a link to an AE discussion? Talk pages are only for discussing the content of the page, not the conduct of an editor. How in any stretch of the imagination is Dicklyon's post appropriate there? Do we post ANI notices on all of the talk pages? No, only on the user talk page. Apteva (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop. If needed, allow (or request) uninvolved editors to remove actually inappropriate contributions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly do expect uninvolved editors to remove the offending section. And I ask that you revert your revert. Apteva (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The section is not obviously offending, so I must decline your request. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Please see WP:ANI#JHunterJ for violation of the 1RR sanctions on WP:MOS. Apteva (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Birds

Please bear in mind that I have no opinion on the issue and would not likely vote either way when it comes up again. I can see the validity of both sides, though.

This is not the only long standing dispute that WP has. I am simply summarizing the situation as I see it. One of the long standing disputes, Yogurt vs. something else was evidently successfully resolved.

It is my recommendation that if anyone, yourself or anyone else, wants to change Hooded Crow to Hooded crow it be done to all 10,000 articles, and only after all (most) of the people who thought it should be Hooded Crow agree that it should be Hooded crow. That is the way consensus works. It takes time to achieve, but once it is achieved it can be implemented quickly and there will be no objections to the change. That is what consensus means. I can think of consensus discussions that went on for thirty years and were only decided because the original option was no longer an option. And I am not exaggerating about 30 years. But normally it does not take that long nor are there that many who hold on to their opinion. I think I could count on one hand the editors who want (wanted?) to change Kiev to the "official name". I recently checked google ngram to see how that was trending - maybe in 20 years.[2] Apteva (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong venue for your recommendation. Kindly steer clear of my talk page; you have made enough of a nuisance of yourself and have worn out my welcome with your incredibly silly ANI against me. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sarah Langan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Garden City High School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notification of discussion

You have been mentioned here in a discussion at this user talk page. (I tried to add a WP:AC/DS template, but was not able to find the right one.) Regards, --Neotarf (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RM

With regard to "If you're unhappy with a proposal's introduction, suggest changes to the OP and let them make any changes". Been there, tried that, not worth asking every editor who edits an article to change their edit - just fix what needs to be fixed. Works better. Apteva (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you get blocked for altering their text over their objections, yes. Also, steer clear of my Talk page. This note was better confined to the discussion it started in. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust (sacrifice)

If I may, what is your reasoning for locating the TOC to the right? This is not the standard for article and I can see no way it may be an obstruction.
—Sowlos (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of it gave no reasoning, so when I restored the redirect hatnote, I brought it back as well. No objections to its removal with the reason above. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of Carl Squared episodes

Per your contributions here, please consider commenting at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:List of Carl Squared episodes. I couldn't find the policy/guideline regarding talk pages of redirect pages e.g. when the talk page itself is maintained, when the talk page itself also is redirected, whether there is a speedy delete for such a talk page. Thanks in advance for your insight. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Facultative not a disambiguation page?

In this edit summary, you said that Facultative is "not a dab page." Why? Should it potentially be tagged as a set-index article instead? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list of partial title matches. The entries include the word "facultative" in a longer phrase, but none of them are ambiguous with the title "Facultative" (that is, no reader would expect to find any of those article in an encyclopedia with the single-word title "Facultative". It does not look like a set index either, for the same reason. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks... perhaps I should have thought a little harder; I was in a bit of a hurry. Is there any maintenance tag that might be appropriate? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I should probably think harder about that myself (and then be bold...) I didn't mean to hassle you with unnecessary questions. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Perhaps it just needs a better intro before the list of partial title matches. {{Lead rewrite}}? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weisman Art Museum / WAM

Regarding this edit asserting that the Weisman Art Museum is "not known as WAM": while the article may not mention it, it certainly self-identifies that way: http://weisman.umn.edu/ – I see WAM used there 10 times, including "About WAM". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the Wikipedia article doesn't mention it, we don't list it on the Wikipedia disambiguation page. We're not trying to disambiguate the web, just Wikipedia. See WP:DABACRONYM. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comet Hale-Bopp

This is a bit hasty, no? I obviously disagree with the comment of "disruptive". This is an obvious move that clearly has support. It certainly was not open long enough for those who support this move to weigh in, and anyone who opposes it clearly can not be opposing it for any valid reason. 18 hrs and 48 min on a weekend? Seriously this is not what I would expect. Care to reconsider? Apteva (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aspen-Pitkin County Airport

Please. Closing as Snow with two votes? Counting the nominator, that is 2:1 and with only one more vote becomes tied at 2:2. With two more it becomes 3:2 in favor of moving. Per WP:Snow, What the snowball clause is not, is an uphill battle that might not be winnable. Clearly that is the case here. To me it is cut and dry - move, and I have not seen any valid arguments against the move. Once again, I strongly disagree with the comment of "disruptive". It is never disruptive to correct an error. I will not bother to check to see if any of the others have been closed but ask that those also be reconsidered, as I am more than sure that they have been. Apteva (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I would not consider that you are an "uninvolved user/admin" in any of the RM discussions that I initiate, per previous interaction, and would ask that you re-open all of them and leave the closes to an admin who does not have an ax to grind with me, and can fairly and impartially consider them. Apteva (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, there's no requirement for the initiator to bless the uninvolvement of an uninvolved closing admin. You'll have to go ask someone else to re-open your disruptive RMs. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That responsibility lies on your shoulders and yours alone. If you have an ax to grind against an editor it is a misuse of tools to speedy close a discussion that editor has opened, instead of allowing someone who can make a fair and unbiased decision do the close. Should this pattern continue, I can assure you that you will lose those tools. Wikipedia has no need for admins who can not see biases where they exist. Apteva (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Catholicity

I agree there could be a primary topic for Catholicity, but I think it would be Catholicism if anything, not Catholicism#History of the term Catholic. JFHutson (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that too. The other arrangement of the new disambiguation page landed it on WP:MALPLACED. I'll make that change. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2012 November 19

An editor has asked for a Move review of Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2012 November 19. 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. Apteva (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign button

Thanks for sorting out the page placement for this and Campaign Button. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Like -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfD

Due to your recent edit on HP (disambiguation) and several in the history, I'm linking you to an RfD I started: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 December 1 CTF83! 02:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close

Please revert your close at Talk:Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9#Requested move. As you may or may not know, comets are correctly spelled with a hyphen, not an endash, and as you may or may not know, I am attempting to call attention to the error and fix it in the MOS. This premature close is highly inappropriate. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, and stop being disruptive. As you already know, Wikipedia consensus style is to use an endash. You are disruptively using the wrong venues to call attention to it or to "fix" what you perceive to be an error. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you consider the "right venues"? Please see my proposal. It is never disruptive to make proposals such as opening RM's or RfC's. Let them go a week/month and see if anyone agrees, and let someone else do the close. Please. Apteva (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VPP, or follow WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. Yes, it is sometimes disruptive. Let the RFC/U and AN/I finish. Please. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I tried mediation and no one wanted to find out which was better, hyphens or endashes. Letting the RFC/U and AN/I finish are not the issue. Please also let the RM finish, and I will advertise the RM at VPP. Apteva (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Make your pitch for the correct style guidelines at VPP. The RM will remain closed unless a new style consensus is formed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dab page entry orders

I noticed that you reordered the entries on Lycanthrope (disambiguation). I had ordered them by page views. What was your rationale? ENeville (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha by qualifier, but I've restored your ordering. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undun

To say that I'm disappointed in your moves regarding this title is an understatement, but using the words that actually come to mind will not advance the discussion, so I'll exercise some restraint.

I appreciate that you did offer some reasoning in your summary, but I would have much preferred it if you had made it a matter of discussion. Sure, I could have done the same thing, but in light of a) WP:BOLD, and b) my understanding of the topic, I thought it a more than reasonable move. For all I knew, the person who created the article on the album was a youngster who had never even heard of the single (though he's probably heard it playing, somewhere, sometime in his life). Accordingly, I had no way of knowing whether the move would be in the least bit controversial. You, on the other hand, made your move fully cognizant of the fact that there was at least one person with strong feelings on the matter, and you chose to use your administrative powers to override the move by this lowly editor, without engaging in a discussion. Bad form, in my view.

Look, I get that you're a highly experienced editor, especially, it appears, in the area of disambiguation. But a bigger person would have recognized that clearly, someone (who doesn't even edit all that much), had taken the time to create a dab page and then move another page, and therefore, that person would be likely to have an objection to your move. And since you could only do this by virtue of your mop, you were really engaged in a major slap down. You might be the nicest guy in the world. You might normally be the most courteous editor on the project. But this is my first interaction with you, and I'm less than impressed.

For the record, The Guess Who's song was not only a major hit song, it is iconic. It gets major rotation on oldies stations, it has been used as a point of cultural reference in comedy sketches on TV and movies, Wally Lamb named his first novel after the song, and everyone over the age of 40 knows the tune.

Of course, as you stated, the wikilinks leads one to believe the album should have primacy. But I think it's clear that such thinking is hard to separate from RECENTISM; naturally an album (and apparently, a very good album) that came out one year ago is going to get more coverage in Wikipedia than a single from 40 years ago. Let's take two individuals that I loathe equally: Ricky Nelson and Justin Beiber. Beiber's article is a bit longer, and has more wikilinks to it. By your logic, if I understand it correctly, if the two of them shared the name (let's say they're both named "Ricky Beiber"), you'd have Ricky Beiber directing to the 21st century person, and not the former, despite the fact that the 60s singer had a longer career.

But that doesn't even go far enough as an example, because I would guess that those two are probably about equally known by their respective generations. Is this true for these works of music? Is it really possible that an indie album from 2011 is known by as many persons (let's say, aged 15-30) as this song is by persons aged 45-60? I'd bet my last nickel that it isn't even close. And our titles should reflect what our readers are looking to find.

I'm sure you've got lots of policy rationale for what you did. But to this editor--and I'm sure to 99.99% of those over the age of 40--your move makes absolutely no sense. I actually thought about making the song the primary article, but I thought, given both the article's brevity and youthfulness (after all, a lot fewer of us old farts are creating articles than are youngsters), a dab page would be acceptable. But you couldn't see your way to that kind of compromise, I suppose. You're an admin, I'm a lowly infrequent editor, and your word is law. Not the worst thing I've seen around these parts, but it stinks nonetheless. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's exercising restraint, huh? Can you point me to where you proposed your changes first and made it a matter of discussion? Bold edits are of course fine, but so are reverts. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Undun and WP:MALPLACED. Sorry I was so busy mopping up that I didn't take care of this one to your satisfaction; I wasn't trying to impress you. Use Talk:Undun and/or WP:RM. Cheers. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonlance characters

Hey there! Your contributions to RPG-related articles have been a big help. I was wondering if you would be able to find any additional sources for Goldmoon and Raistlin Majere? We are trying to make sure they meet the WP:GNG at minimum, and preferably exceed that and truly improve the articles. BOZ (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baby come to me, disambiguation

Thanks for cleaning up my mess! I tried to do too much as a non-admin and from memory on how to do the moves. Of course what was really needed was the deletion of the one page to make room for the moves... Thanks again Tiggerjay (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. If you run into that obstacle again, check out {{db-move}} as well. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About to Die article

Hey, thanks for helping clear up where to move the About to Die article! I'm still getting my feet wet here at Wikipedia and appreciate the help. wia (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Faiz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Faizullah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faizullah was not a disambiguation page but an anthroponymy list article. I've corrected its tags. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/U for Apteva: move to close

I am notifying all participants in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apteva that Dicklyon has moved to close the RFC/U, with a summary on the talkpage. Editors may now support or oppose the motion, or add comments:

Please consider adding your signature, so that the matter can be resolved.

Best wishes,

NoeticaTea? 04:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


Fooish surnames

requires a reliable source, which is not permitted on a disambiguation page. I have rewrote to ask authors to be bold in creating the articles, using the sources, and applying the categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

doesn't require a reliable source. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeongi-Gongju

I suggested redirecting it to Sejong City. What do you think about it? Sawol (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with merging it and redirecting it to Sejong City, but as it is currently, Sejong City makes no mention of Gongju. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]