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.
Jacana
Hello. I see you recently deleted Jacana and moved a malplaced disambiguation page to that title. Several wikilinks now point to the dab page. Please can you give me a clue about what was on the deleted page, to help find the best destination for the broken links? Jacana (genus) looks like the obvious target, but some of the wikilinks seem to be meant for the family Jacinidae. Thanks, Certes (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor just created the missing family article and the links are getting sorted out. This was obviously a mess before either of us stepped in but it seems to be cleared up now. Thanks, Certes (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Detroit
What is up with Illegitimate Barrister? I have usually found him to be helpful and friendly, but he won't even talk to me about the Detroit issue. Did you ever find out why he's making all those changes? Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification on the move of the Flute Sonata in B-flat major (attributed to Beethoven) page
Why did you change the name of the article Flute Sonata in B-flat major from the name it was originally created under? The key feature of the original name was that it made clear that the work was one that was attributed to the major composer Ludwig van Beethoven, which the revised name does not do. I do not see how this helps with "precision". I am happy to discuss this, but I would like to read your reasons first. Graham1973 (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "more convoluted" phrasing draws attention to the need for a the dab for just two topics, if neither is primary. The emphasis distinguishes it from the other phrasing, so they don't mean exactly the same thing. In the past, under previous versions of the wording, editors had taken WP:TWODABS as if it meant that there should never be a dab with just two topics. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're making it more confusing by phrasing it that way. "two or more" is about the clearest way to say this. WP:TWODABS was a terrible shortcut anyway. Now its WP:NOPRIMARY. If people still get confused, then you correct the people, not use a convoluted phrasing as a disservice to people that can read. -- Netoholic@19:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now the way it reads is that you should only make a dab page if there are exactly two topics. How is that better? How does adding "or more" hurt this? Also, by reverting too far back, you removed the NOPRIMARY shortcut that was recently added and has nothing to do with this. -- Netoholic@20:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point me to the relevant policy here? It's going to be difficult to find a source for something like this that isn't an image. BenMacDui18:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, regarding your changes of the names of the Úrvalsdeild karla (basketball) seasons, most top-tier men's sport leagues in Iceland are called Úrvalsdeild karla. The nations top men's league that are arguably notable are, besides the basketball league, the Úrvalsdeild karla (handball) and the Úrvalsdeild karla (football). I'm wondering if removing the (basketball) from the title won't make a conflict if one goes about creating articles about for instance the handball league (which is quite well covered in the national media)? Dammit_steve (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It might. And at that point the moves can be reversed. But until then, we don't "pre-disambiguate" articles now. Future Wikipedia can address future Wikipedia's conflicts. :-) Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MOS edit
You know I changed it back to where it had been, right? So, indeed, it changed the meaning. Changed it back to what it was originally, that is. Primergrey (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know you reverted a grammatical correction back to a non-grammatical sentence, and the correction you reverted, indeed, did not change the meaning. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm not sure that this move makes any sense. To begin with, there were many, many Wallachian uprisings during 400 years of history, so there is nothing "precise" about that precision. Secondly, you could have at least started a discussion on this. Thirdly, I don't think pages should just be moved when they are linked on mainpage. Dahn (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Before the move, there was no other Wallachian uprising article and only one that started with "Wallachian uprising". No apparent Wikipedia ambiguity, so no qualifying parenthetical needed. If there are other Wikipedia articles that cover other Wallachian uprisings (MOS:DABMENTION), let me know and I'll rv my move and also create the disambiguation page at the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it quite clearly isn't. Neither is it to the editor who created it under Wallachian uprising of 1821, nor to the other editor who redirected it to Wallachian uprising (1821). You're the first one to bring up this technicality, and to have proposed a rather pointless solution for going around it. Again: if this is really an issue, the way to go about it is to create a disambig for Wallachian uprising (sans date). But is it an absolute must that we do? Dahn (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They were not roughly the same title. One was in violation of WP:PRECISION. Cosmetic moves should not be done, agreed. Things that are broke should be fixed, even when linked from the main page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, how come you moved the Ocean City Maryland life-saving station to the main article without the disambiguation? The Ocean City New Jersey life-saving station is older (by 5 years), and the city has a larger year-round population. See Talk:Ocean City Life-Saving Station, where I brought up a discussion on the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
responded on that talk page
Suggestion
I think it would be better if you stopped rising to the bait. You're not going to convince him to change his mind, and his off-topic sniping will probably alienate anyone who might otherwise agree with him. Policy is on your side, and there's no need to always have the last word. Best, Mackensen(talk)16:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When future Wikipedia has ambiguity, future Wikipedia can apply disambiguation. Current and future Wikipedia use WP:PRECISION, which is a policy, not a rule of thumb. I agree with the rule of thumb when policy is followed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. You don't have an article "Symphony" for one composer, just because there is no other (yet), when many composers wrote one. Can we make Deutsches Hochamt, which is a very generic term, a redirect to Deutsche Singmesse? Or move Deutsche Singmesse - as the slightly more specialised terme - to Deutsches Hochamt? - And back to the former: if you think you have to move you can do it a day later, not making us calculate the views from here and there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. You don't have an article Symphony for one composer, because it has a topic. You do, for instance, have an article Eine kleine Nachtmusik or Arpeggione Sonata because there is no other (yet), or Adagio for Strings because it is primary even though there are others. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music). I don't know what view calculations you need, but the views on the resultant redirect will get you around the "here or there" problem, or you could move them the day before. Leaving bad examples linked from the home page is a bad idea. No opinion on the primary topic of Deutsches Hochamt if there are other topics; there were no other articles or redirects for that name when I moved it, but if the primary topic is Deutsche Singmesse, then yes, it could redirect there and link to the specific work in a {{redirect}} hatnote from it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. How about doing then what the German Wikipedia does: have a disambiguation? de:Deutsches Hochamt. - I translated from there, you don't need to call it bad. The present situation is really as if you'd say Symphony No. 5 and assign it to Beethoven alone because his may be the best-known, or primary topic. We don't. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing, another generic name, and I am unhappy again. It just happens that Widor's Organ Symphony is the first of that kind with an article. What about the next one? Why is the first one automatically the primary topic? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:MUSICSERIES: "When a composer wrote more than one composition of a similar type, multiple articles on such compositions form a series. The most standardized format for article names of such a series is as follows: [composition type] No. [number] ([last name of composer]) ... Deviations from this standardized format are only possible: ... when the composition type has only been used in a series by one composer, which makes the composer disambiguator redundant, e.g. Hungarian Rhapsody No. 19". It's OK to be unhappy with the consensus. If you think the consensus has changed, that talk page for that guideline along with the talk page for the broader policy WP:PRECISION would be the place to confirm. Yes, other articles should also be named in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for teaching about series, - how does it apply? We have now No. 5 this way, and No. 6 your consensus way. Will you make them consistent? - Today, I will write O Clap Your HandsO clap your hands (Vaughan Williams). Do me a favour and don't move it to without composer dab, because in a few days, I'll write O clap your hands (Rutter), and the difference in caps has been found not enough of a distinction before. - A Hungarian Rhapsody, even a No. 19, could be by anybody, so I don't think it's a recognizable title, but I have no time for such things. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are also welcome to move articles to improve the encyclopedia, but sure, I'll move No. 5 to "the consensus way" (not "my consensus way"). Differences in caps can be enough of a distinction (WP:SMALLDETAILS), but as long as there's a disambiguation page at O Clap Your Hands and a redirect to it at O clap your hands, that's a workable arrangement as well. The Fox Woman could also be by anybody, but we rely on the article itself to provide the details beyond identifying the topic, The Fox Woman. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I move articles a lot, but not to a name that I think is inferior. - After checking further, I changed the caps in the psalm setting, because VW's list of composition also has sentence case which is normal for small works such as a motet, on Wikipedia that is, - the publisher has it pompous, sources are there for both ways. - The incipit without dab goes to Psalm 47, that psalm has the settings, - what (or rather: whom) do you think a dab would serve? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You should work with the consensus of the encyclopedia even if you disagree with it. Once you have created both O clap your hands (Vaugham Williams) and O clap your hands (Rutter), where should the reader entering "O clap your hands" in the search box or clicking through O clap your hands land? If neither of those articles is the primary topic for the title, the answer is a disambiguation page. (If one of those is primary, then it won't need the composer's name in the title.) If the psalm is primary, O clap your hands could redirect to it, but Psalm 47 would then need a hatnote to provide navigation to the two new pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(after ec): I have enough work and will not perform moves to titles I believe are inferior. - The psalm is the primary topic, surely, because all settings of it are based on it. I will make the redirect tomorrow, when it's on the Main page. We can make a dab page, but you have not answered for whom. If 20 composers set it, would you mention them all in a hat note? (compare Psalm 130, De profundis, - it happens). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being the basis of other things does not necessarily make a topic primary. I have answered for whom: "the reader entering "O clap your hands" in the search box or clicking through O clap your hands". IF 20 topics need to be disambiguated, the hatnote would go instead to a disambiguation page. For one or two topics needing disambiguation from a primary topic, a disambiguation page is not needed. We have a whole set of guidelines on this. WP:TWODABS: "If there are two or three other topics, it is still possible to use a hatnote which lists the other topics explicitly, but if this would require too much text (roughly, if the hatnote would extend well over one line on a standard page), then it is better to create a disambiguation page and refer only to that.", WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "Being the original source of the name is also not determinative." We all have enough work, so it will still be useful to the encyclopedia that you don't create new articles under titles that will have to be moved to the correct title (the organ symphonies in this case; the suggested approach for the O clap your hands works is fine). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I try to create articles under the right names, and in most of more than 1000 cases, I think I was successful. Finding No. 5, I make No. 6 like it, without further questions and consulting guidelines. Do you understand? (If I had not found the No. 5 I would probably have called it Organ Symphony No. 6 (Widor), instead of a name that looks like a too literal translation from French. We say Piano Sonata, not Sonata for piano.) - The premise for the dab page question was that a redirect to the psalm exists. Would a dab be useful on top, for (so far) only 2 further entries? - What is your answer to the distinction between a specific title and a generic name, such as Hungarian Rhapsody, Piano Sonata, or Organ Symphony? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The same as always: WP:PRECISION. The distinctions between so-called specific titles and so-called generic names are part of the music guidelines, but would be overriden by the article title policy if they were interpreted to conflict. For a primary + 2 or 3 other topics, there are two possible acceptable solutions: hatnotes pointing to the 2 or 3 other topics, or hatnote pointing to a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me you read the policy thus: "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of [distinguish] the article [from extant WP articles.]" The same paragraph refers to "natural and recognizable title" and "concise, and precise enough to be understood by most people". Shouldn't being able to know in advance that one is clicking on Candide (operetta) be independent of whether Candide has its own article yet?
None of this explains what is it that makes Ibrahim Hassan a primary topic, though. Sparafucil (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, the title should not replicate the lede. Disambiguating qualifiers are only needed with Wikipedia ambiguity, and then only for topics that aren't primary. Ibrahim Hassan was the primary topic because that was the topic that the base name took you to. Who originally set up that arrangement and why, I don't know, I just fixed it so the base name no longer redirected to the same name with a qualifier, since it was set up as the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong redirect of National Highway 1D (India, old numbering) to National Highway 1D
I discovered today that on 2 February 2018 you had redirected the article "National Highway 1D (India, old numbering)" to another page on Wikipedia "National Highway 1D". Your redirection is misdirected and misleading for two reasons.
First, there is no National Highway 1D in India since April 2010 and your redirection leads to a ghost (and imprecise) title and this ghost title gives a prima facie impression that such a highway exists. Though you have done a penance for your misdirection by writing in the article that NH 1D has been renumbered NH 1, the ghost title itself should not exist as it is inconsistent with other articles on old numbers of highways in India. With renumbering of all national highways by National Highway Authority of India in April 2010, the nomenclature "National Highway 1D" ceased to exist because the highway was renumbered NH 1. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National Highway 1 (India) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List of National Highways in India by highway number.
Second, the reason you have stated for your endeavour is WP:PRECISION. There is no precision (or consistency) in what you have done. What you have done is full of inconsistency between similar articles on old numbers of national highways in India. Wikipedia continues to have pages with titles "National Highway ** (India, old numbering)" (e.g., National Highway 3 (India, old numbering)). In fact, the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List of National Highways in India (Old numbering) links to the article "National Highway 1D (India, old numbering)" and to similarly titled articles. There is a new NH 3 in India (with route and alignment entirely different from old NH 3) and, god forbid, if you were to (mis)redirect the existing article National Highway 3 (India, old numbering) to National Highway 3, you will create utter confusion and inconsistency.
What you have done is inconsistent as National Highway 1D does not exist in India. Your reason WP:PRECISION does not hold good and the nomenclature "National Highway ** (India, old numbering)" should consistently apply to all old numbers of highways. Please do not create imprecise and ghost title (titles, if you have done more such redirections) and restore the article "National Highway 1D (India, old numbering)". I do not know any editing tools of Wikipedia and therefore I do not know how to restore the article or how to redirect.
Thanks.
Ravindra Rao
Rao Ravindra (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the articles from National Highway 1D (India, old numbering) to National Highway 1D because there was no Wikipedia ambiguity for the title "National Highway 1D". If that's a bad title for the article, it should be moved to a good title for the article, but adding a disambiguating qualifier to the unambiguous title is not a good title. WP:PRECISION. Per the article's lede "National Highway 1D (NH 1D), also known as Srinagar-Leh Highway, was a National Highway entirely within the state of Jammu & Kashmir in North India that connected Srinagar to Leh in Ladakh." the common name of the highway is "National Highway 1D". That the highway doesn't currently exist doesn't change the correctness of the title (see also William Shakespeare, who is dead, or Roman Empire, which no longer exists either). Some projects try to force qualifiers to be consistently used across both ambiguous and unambiguous titles, but the broader community is against that (WP:PRECISION, and see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). Until there is Wikipedia ambiguity for "National Highway 1D" this article needs to be at the base name. If another title is more suitable (and is only qualified if needed for disambiguation), it could be moved there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Zig and Zag disambiguation
I see you reverted my edit for the links to Zig and Zag, returning the "disambiguation" link even though those articles redirect to each main article. The WP page says disambiguation links should remain if there's a reason for them, but I see no reason or advantage in this case. What am I missing? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have before now suggested that WP:FIXDABLINKS (fix everything before moving) is unrealistic in the case of WP:RM requests, and that WP:RM closers should routinely point requesters to WP:FIXDABLINKS and suggest that they exdigitate and fix the resulting bad links. Admins have other things to do, but all editors have the duty to correct errors in Wikipedia.
As it happens, I came across a page move today from (song) to (Elvis Presley song). It was clearly justified: there are two songs with the same title which have articles, and half-a-dozen more which don't. That was a very easy case: all of the links to (song) related to (Elvis Presley song) and none needed thought. I timed myself. There were 68 links. It took me 29 minutes to fix them. That means, an experienced DABfixer working flat out can fix just under 150 links/hour.
Those three page moves created about 7 man-hours of work for "someone else". I have seen worse, but in every case it should have been the requester(s) and/or the mover who did the heavy lifting, not the volunteers in WP:DPL. We see something like 700-1000 new bad links to DAB pages every single day. I specialise in the difficult ones, and try to look at least 200 of them. Narky Blert (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That dedicated team of volunteer users has got the number of bad links to DAB pages down from 208,000 (I've seen much higher figures suggested from earlier times) to 6,000. Care to join up? It's all very well saying, "we have a dedicated team of users who specialize in DPLs" if you yourself do nothing. And from what I can see at DAB Challenge, you do do nothing. Narky Blert (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed hundreds, maybe the Dab Fix isn't listed there, and I would have done the others (Bray, Hambleton and Holywell) over the next few days after the move but they were done before then. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And trust me I appreciate the sentiment behind the statements that "all editors have the duty to correct errors in Wikipedia" and "created 7 man-hours of work for someone else", but those stem from an employment mindset The sentiment behind "while you yourself do nothing" I appreciate less, taking umbrage on Crouch, Swale's behalf. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service, there is no deadline, and the edits made the offend you because they "created work" still improved the encyclopedia. If the increased workload is vexing, work on something else or take a wikibreak, and see what other gnomes have done when you return. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outcasts (Marvel Comics mutates) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
SMS Admiral Spaun
( Review or comment Article history )
Admiral Spaun underway
Admiral Spaun underway
... that the cruiser SMS Admiral Spaun was the first ship of the Austro-Hungarian Navy to be constructed with steam turbines? Source: "Admiral Spaun was the first major turbine-powered unit of the Austrian-Hungarian Navy" (Gardiner and Gray 1984, p. 336)
ALT1:... that after the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the Austro-Hungarian cruiser SMS Admiral Spaun helped to escort his body back back to Trieste? Source: "Upon receiving word of the assassination, Haus raced from Pola to the mouth of the Narenta aboard the yacht Lacroma, escorted by the dreadnought Tegetthoff the scout cruiser Admiral Spaun, and every torpedo boat that was ready to put to sea. The hastily as sembled escort fleet was on hand in time to witness the transfer of the bodies to the Viribus Unitis; thereafter, the entire force moved slowly up the coast to Trieste, remaining within sight of land much of the way." (Sondhaus 1994, p. 244)
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hurricane Aircat
Moved to mainspace by White Shadows (talk). Self-nominated at 02:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC).
What was the thinking behind deleting a decade's worth of edits to Jacana when moving the pages around (and as a side note not asking anyone about) instead of moving the page about the family to the new location and then fixing the links? The new article slapped up for the family is now a stub and people's edits and edit history have been lost. I'm going to think about how to fix this. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk21:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection I suspect that someone messed with the page before you deleted it, if so I would simply ask that you review edit histories before making such moves to ensure long standing articles aren't deleted in error. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk21:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JHunterJ, I would disagree with you strongly re the removal of the her launch year from the article title. The problem is that we do not know how many French cutter Espions there are. Just because Wikipedia does not have another article with the same name bar the year does not mean that they don't exist. Furthermore, it helps situate the vessel in time. There were many French vessels named Espion, including other naval vessels and privateers. Providing information that someone browsing can discard readily if they don't need it, but that might help someone who is less certain of what they are looking for, would seem to be a good thing. Wikipedia policies are suggestions (not religious dogma), that when it comes to ships, are frequently inappropriate. The WP:Ships project views including the launch year as part of the name as best practice. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both WP:NCSHIP and WP:PRECISION (a policy) reflect the consensus of not using the year for unambiguous ship names; the claim the ship project views it as best practice isn't reflected in the project, but project guidelines can't contradict policy anyway (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). Not knowing how many Espions there are is not a problem; if and when another ship of that name is covered by Wikipedia, then (and not before) the articles can be disambiguated. The article text helps situate the vessel in time, which is what the body of every article does. Consensuses that you happen to disagree with are not necessarily religious dogmas. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you notice the hatnote is still there???? Didn't you notice that the base name redirected to the qualified title and wasn't a disambiguation page???? So that the Leonardo work was the primary topic???? And it is perfectly acceptable for there to be a primary topic and a hatnote to a second topic without a disambiguation page???? And WP:PRECISION???? And WP:CIVIL while we're at it???? Go propose a change from having a primary topic to having no primary topic if you want to do something actually useful, pt. 32. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that another editor redirected the plain name to the Leonardo, presumably having realized there were many others. Knowing him I doubt he was even aware of the concept of a primary article. Given how common the subject is, there is no way the idea that the unfinished Leonardo fragment is primary survives a moment's thought. But of course you didn't give it that. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed how the base name had landed on the Leonardo article as the de facto consensus primary topic, and kept it as such. But of course you didn't think about that. Hidebound, hidebound, hidebound. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My thought was that that would be needed if there's a theory that some reader is looking for one of the places and doesn't know the topic they intended is in England. :-)
Readers who live in England may know that but people elsewhere may not, see for example that Newton and Kenton are divided into country. There are also other places called Norfolk and Surrey in other countries. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but are there readers seeking "Elmbridge" who don't know that it's in England, and if so, will telling them that all of those places are in England help them decide between the options? -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt people wouldn't know its in England but as far as I'm aware its usual practice to state which country a place in in both in the article and on the DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, but it's also usual practice to open with a simply "may refer to". Restricting that opening to a certain set of things is for set index articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your disambiguation page formatting is incorrect
Hi JHunterJ, I've noticed you've edited several disambiguation pages. There's two main things I've noticed:
1. You're separating sub-sections into their own main sections (the most common casualty being Arts and media/entertainment)
2. Sometimes eliminating sizeable sections, and moving its links to "Other uses" section
In sizable pages, "Arts and entertainment" is supposed to remain sub-sectioned, per WP:LONGDAB. Film, TV and Music aren't supposed to be their own parent sections.
And Other uses section is supposed to remain short, per MOS:DABGROUPING. So if there's a way to group certain links under a parent section, it should stay that way.
The main goal is too keep DAB pages as easy to navigate as possible, not break things down into 'sole' parent sections and have them organized by alphabetical order whereby similar subjects like Film, Music and TV are on opposite ends of the list. Any reason for these changes? –DA1 (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LONGDAB is an essay-level advice page, and one I'm not familiar with. The "arts/media/entertainment" section with a "music" subsection with "albums/songs/bands" subsections is overly nested. I don't eliminate sizeable sections to move their links to Other uses, unless the sizeable section too vague to be useful (lumping a handful of disparate elements together, usually in the name of arts & entertainment: so a song, a video game, and a television episode). Other uses should ideally be short, but if there are a lot of unrelated elements, having them together in "Other uses" is no worse than having them together in "disparate cultural things". -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JHunterJ: It's actually not an essay-level 'advice' page, but a "supplement" of MOS:DABORG and MOS:DABGROUPING which is a guideline page.
Supplement pages aren't on the level of guidelines (which are strict, while the things that are flexible are left as supplements). The "Arts and entertainment" and other similar parent sections are to be sub-sectioned. That is MOS:DABORG which is policy. DABLONG merely details and expounds on it, but the sub-sectioning and "Arts and entertainment" is required per DABORG. It's part of the manual of style for dabs. –DA1 (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the difference between essays and supplements. I do follow MOS:DABORG, which certainly does not require "Arts and entertainment". The supplement is not part of the guideline. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Long disambiguation pages should be grouped into subject sections, and even subsections as necessary, as described below. These sections (and any subsections) should typically be in alphabetical order, e.g.: Arts and entertainment; Business; Government and politics; Places; Science and technology.
As for supplements, we don't need to follow every little word it says but it's generally a good idea to take them into consideration as well. But you're completely wrong about not requiring "Arts and entertainment", not only is it but DABORG guidelines sub-sectioning in general. DA1 (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sub-sectioning part is a requirement. Don't fixate on the labels (header), but rather the message. Separating Film, TV and Music (into three opposite ends of the article) is not in line with the guidelines of sub-sectioning whose only purpose is to make it easy to navigate for readers.
A large number of topics can make it difficult for a reader to find a particular topic. On longer disambiguation pages, separate entries by subject sections. Subject areas should be chosen carefully to simplify navigation; see Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area for detailed guidance.
ps: master of naming, am I right that the red link above would be correct for an article about this kind of monuments, while an individual one has Monument? In that case I'd move the dab to lower case, and overwrite? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you moved this to just Moycarky. May I ask why? I would have thought that a disambiguator was necessary to distinguish it from the townland of the same name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, JHunterJ. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
Hi. I have reverted an edit of yours on this article, and would like to remind you about WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring, a disruptive activity which is not allowed. Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential. While the discussion is going on, the article generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for stepping in on the discussion at Talk:Patton, but I'm not clear on what the new proposal is. Maybe its because I just woke up, but I can't tell if the three items are the proposal. If not, it might be useful to have a clear sentence stating the proposal. And I'm also confused: Item 1 and 2 are contradictory or do I need more coffee? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 15:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping it's more coffee. There are three options of where Patton should "land":
A "please choose one" would have rescued me in my decaffeinated state. I did re-visit the page and figured it out before seeing your message here, however - and now that there are more responses as examples, a change is not necessary. Cheers. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 07:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Merry
Happy Christmas!
Hello JHunterJ,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that
Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"
My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk01:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BOZ (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! 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.
I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :) BOZ (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Carsten Koch
Look, there's a Danish politician of that name, so a few times as notable, and some red links for him now go to the musician. What can we do? Move back, I'd suggest. Make a stub for the politician if that's not enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Returned and disambiguated. My own wish: when giving any title "X (Y)" thought, please also create something (stub, redirect, disambiguation) at the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the silly rule not to accept helpful interlanguage links in disambiguation pages which are now even accepted in featured articles? I have no time now to fight it, but that is very strange.
You moved another article while on the Main page, after I just requested something above ;) - Bach set the same line, and Telemann, - Stölzel will never be the primary topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for both. - An interlanguage link is no external link, but a wanted connection for which we created a template. Shaking head, but off to the third day of Christmas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the inconvenience; I hadn't noticed the recent rule change. I've added a interlanguage link from the list which is Koch's blue link on the dab page. I think that's the nearest we can get to helping the reader under the new rules. Certes (talk) 11:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I started the politician article. I've left the disambiguation page at the base name for now, as I've no input on the primary-topic-ness. Suggest letting it sit for a month of three and then checking the readership usage. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
