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.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MusashiNovel.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MusashiNovel.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Where dab pages already exist for one or more of the transliterations (like Nakayama and Zhongshan (disambiguation)), I would use just one link to those dab pages rather than trying to keep the two lists in sync -- unless there area substantial number of entries on the dab page that are not related to the CKJV characters, but a transliteration of a homophonic set of characters. JHunterJ (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I separate out tranliterations of "Nakayama" and "Zhongshan". Please see my changes. Also, I moved a few Chinese characters to the respective Dab pages.
Note: Sun Yat-sen (孫逸仙) is the English name for 孫中山, so it shouldn't be classified under "Zhongshan" or "Nakayama". His given name "Yat-sen" is a non-pinyin transliteration of 逸仙 (rather than 中山).
Can you please fix my changes to make it more presentable, and conform it to WP:WPDAB standards? Thank you for your help.--Endroit (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I finally checked up on the dabs and made some changes. I'm not sure of the best way to link from a Chinese character dab back to the transliteration dabs, but I made a try. I also moved the new template to {{transliterationof}}
Oops, thank you for fixing my spelling error.
Regarding the links from Chinese character dabs to the regular dabs, I take it that it's something new. I kind of like this approach for 青山, although not so much for 中山. Alphabetical order can be maintained wherever possible. But I think the dabs, Nakayama (disambiguation) and Zhongshan (disambiguation), should all come first for clarity. But this is really minor, and I really like the way you grouped the items together for simplicity.--Endroit (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you would help with the repairs on Kurosaki as well. I believe it should be classified a Japanese surname page, but I wanted confirmation from you first. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I missed the commented message. I took a scan of Kurosaki and Akatsuki; Ash does need cleanup (for redlinks and multiple blue links, if nothing else). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello JHunter. It seems there are two subjects with the name 'Franz Ferdinand': Franz Ferdinand(Archduke) and Franz Ferdinand(band). While, a search for 'franz ferdinand wikipedia' in any search engine lists the band before the archduke, suggesting more Wiki users are interested in reading about the band than the Archduke, there are other users - like yourself - who consider the Archduke to have a greater importance. There is debate about which is the primary topic. Is it therefore not appropriate to redirect to disambiguation page? Other similar examples where musicians have appropriated names with exisiting meanings are Madness, Madonna, Queen, Pulp and Wings. There appears to be a precedent here. With respect, Wardroad (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of importance, but of primacy. I don't believe 'franz ferdinand wikipedia' is a good indicator. Using the "What links here" from Franz Ferdinand, for instance, indicates that the primary topic remains the archduke. In any event, the place to discuss a change in the primary topic is Talk:Franz Ferdinand. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it is about primacy - I used incorrect vocabulary. I looked at the 'what links here' pages of the article. Of the first hundred, thirteen of the links point to the archduke. Eighty seven point to the band. This indicates that the band is of primary interest to the users of Wikipedia. Beyond personal opinion, can you counter this? Despite the obvious primacy of the band, It is not fair to redirect to the band page, but to the disambiguation page. Please see discussion on the page. Wardroad (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the superfluous disambiguation - that's not something that occurred to me. Thanks for your fair and even-handed editing, Wardroad (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naked
You seem to be very, very, very confused with regards to the Naked page. (Or you're just a jerk—but I don't think so.) The consensus on the Talk:Naked page is that it should redirect to Naked (disambiguation). You keep putting it to Nudity, but with no reason. Several reasons against doing so are clearly listed, surprise, right at the top of the page, from 2007-ish.
You've jumped into an ancient discussion from 2004 that is discussing an ancient version of Naked that needed to be merged with Nudity since they covered the same topics. Now that that's been done—over three years ago—that's no longer relevant. So, instead, Naked goes right to a disambiguation page.
Actually, I jumped to the end of the talk page, where the most recent discussions on a topic can be expected to be found. (It is a surprise to find them closer to the top of the talk page.) It's too bad the previous talk page editor didn't follow the usual convention. I've corrected his error, and replied there. In the future, you should still voice your opinions on the talk page as well, which you still haven't done, but I'm trying to assume it's not because you're just a jerk (despite the "very, very, very confused" note above). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any suggestions about what to do with this mess: In space? It's just a list of things that contain the phrase. The only articles that are actually named "in space" are the one in question and In Space, which redirects to it. Redirect them both to Outer space? Find some other use for them?--ShelfSkewedTalk05:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:MusashiNovel.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I've left some comments on the Centerville discussion page regarding where one might put the Centerville that's in Fremont. Which reminded me, by the way, to thank you for showing me by example a good way to display entries on dab pages that link to anchor points within articles. I like how you don't link to the name ("Centerville"), but to something a little farther along in the entry. That had been bothering me for some time as I'd been coming across them on other dab pages. Cheers, --Ken Gallager (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are all of these named in their correct article titles, respectively? I'm thinking the format is supposed to be Character's name (if needed, "title of story"), like Miroku (InuYasha) for example? I think I screwed up with Wiz (character) if this is the case. Is this all making sense? Hope I'm asking the right way. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there's a guideline for it. Personally, I prefer the dab portion of a title to be a noun that reflects the subject, like "character" or "InuYasha character", or "TV episode" or "Seinfeld episode", rather than the setting type, like "InuYasha" or "Seinfeld", but I've seen both styles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redlinks and disambiguation pages
I've left a somewhat crabby note at Talk:William Leslie (disambiguation) explaining why I find these useful. When I'm trying to sort out (say) 3 MPs of the same name, say "John Smith", I generally try and go through all the existing links and disambiguate as many existing links to "John Smith" as I can identify. When we have but one article on a "John Smith" (as is the case with Wm. Leslie), this seems useful, as otherwise many articles have bluelinks to a quite inappropriate person. But if I cannot log the redlinks on a disambiguation page, there's no easy way to find out how many *disambiguated* links to various John Smiths exist in Wikipedia; if different disambiguations are chosen for "John Smiths" who are in fact the same person (due to the lack of a list), redlinks may remain even after an article has been created, because the second disambiguation is not known and not linked to it. Choess (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The blue links are a good start, but the blue links must link to an article that covers the disambiguated entry. I removed the ones that still don't have an article to disambiguate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dab templates in the user namespace
My project for this morning was removing User namespace pages from Category:Disambiguation (mostly by piping {{disambig}} templates on sandbox pages, or by removing the category tag improperly placed on User subpages). I was able to clean out all but two: User:Ed Smith/monobook.js and User:Ed Smith/monobook.jss. Both pages (which of course I can't edit) include a version of the human-name dab page Ed Smith, including the disambig template. User:Ed Smith—who was active for only one day, more than a year and a half ago—did nothing but copy the Ed Smith dab page to his own pages, and then repeatedly try to redirect the dab page to them. In other words, all his edits were vandalistic or at least disruptive. Does your admin mop allow you clean up corners like this, or is there some request process for removing such user pages? Best--ShelfSkewedTalk18:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hunter, After our "Fictional characters/people" edits yesterday on Johnson and Johnson (disambiguation), I started thinking about the issue of handling fictionals. Wanted you to know I posted a couple of questions on the wikiproject anthroponymy Talk page in this regard so that the group can benefit from answers. Hoping you can look there? Thanks Rosiestephenson (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go
I'd appreciate if you put an eyeball on the dab page Go. One specific question I had was about the nonlink Go! for the PSP peripherals in the "Other uses" section. The link goes to the section of the PSP article that discusses all the peripherals, but several of them (Go!Messenger, for example, and three or four others) have individual articles. Should those be included on the dab page? And there seem to be a lot of marginal cases--things that could be included (Go-Mart or the redirect link Go (Monopoly), for example, and see the Lookfrom link in the "See also" section)--but the page is long as it is and I didn't want to load it down unnecessarily. As always, any advice or changes you'd like to make are welcome...--ShelfSkewedTalk18:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the PSP link is needed, since it doesn't appear that any of the peripherals are known as "Go", but they might be. IMO, there's certainly no need to link, say, Go!Messenger. Go (Monopoly), yes, Go-Mart, probably not. Short-word dabs are always long, and I don't think there's any reason to avoid keeping it long or even making it longer. That said, things like Go Air could be removed or moved to a "See also" section. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HP dab
You might want to recount that number, J. I think you are forgetting a few folk. I'll give you the opportunity to revise your response, so i don't have to correct you. :) - Arcayne(cast a spell)03:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A little. I figured you were asking about removing the redlink entries altogether, not just the links themselves. And I removed the trailing periods and reworded the intro. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't make of redirect; Vampyr is fine -- it could be placed in "See also", but since the page seems to be dabbing both vampire and vampyre, I let it stand. Yes, the redirects on Scarface are good. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I don't think it needs it. You can just make Hellsing (anime) a "normal" redirect to Hellsing (disambiguation). If the disambiguation is long enough to need actual sections (the ones that use ==Section==), then a redirect to an anchor like "Dab Name#Section" works without creating a span. However, if the dab doesn't use sections but uses groups, you can make the anchor work anyway by putting <span id="Group">In '''group''':</span> so that "Dab Name#Group" jumps to that section. But Hellsing (disambiguation) isn't long enough to need it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if you happen to know anything about starting an article with a prepositional phrase, e.g. adpositional phrase begins with "In linguistics, an adpositional phrase is..." From what I have found in the WP:GTL, WP:LS indicates that the bold title restatement should be as early as possible. Thoughts? Also, if beginning with something other than the title restatement is contraindicated, what about a case such as patch (computing), which starts with "In computing, a patch is..."? Thanks in advance for your insights. ENeville (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I know nothing about such phrases. I agree with moving the bold part early, and see no benefit to "In computing, a patch is" vs. "A patch in computing is" or even "A patch is". -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coca-Cola Classic
Please do not revert links to disambiguations of college football bowl games, like you did with Coca-Cola Classic. While it is not a post-season bowl game, it was a significant game played for several years on many levels and because of its name, could be easily confused with the soft drink and soft drink company that sponsored the game.
Not quite what happened. Base name goes to the primary topic, which is unrelated to the football project. Possible confusion is handled by the hatnote on Coca-Cola. See WP:D for more information on primary topics. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
R2D
Sorry, haven't got a clue what it means. I've seen it used a couple of times by Admins but not sure what it actually means. I think "Redirect to" is the R2 part but I'm struggling to come up with a good enough word for the D. You could try asking the person who created the redirect [1]. Let me know if you find out what it is. - X201 (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article was originally about a novelist professor at the University of Florida, which is why I'm interested in it. Today a brand new editor tried to turn it into a disambiguation page by creating a new article David F. Leavitt and clipping and pasting the old article into it. I reverted his changes in the original article and noted that it wasn't the proper way to do it. I was then going to merge the old into the new and then change the old to a disambiguation page. The new editor promptly reverted my revert. I really don't care to get into a war over this. Anyway the talk and history sections of the original article belong to the new one. Perhaps you would be able to straighten it out. Thanks. clariosophic (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand some of the edits you made to the Eusebia page. I'm particularly thinking of this edit wherein you eliminated a section on various saints and a few other things. Were those bits eliminated because they don't yet point to wikipedia pages? I considered them to be pretty important bits of information for anyone who might have been looking up the word/name Eusebia; even though they didn't go to entries, they contained useful information. Is that inappropriate for a disambiguation page? Likewise, the information on the Greek ideal/virtue "Eusebia" seemed like important context for understanding the name -- all those people named Eusebia were named after the virtue (or, probably, other people...) I'd like to work up an entry for the the Greek idea, but my start on it has been a little stubby.
Also: Eusebia is not a surname in the case of Oma Eusebia. "Oma" means something like "Granny" -- Eusebia is her name, Oma is a title or honorific.
This was the first (only) disambiguation page I've created, and I had trouble finding any guidelines for how they're put together. If what I wrote was outside Wikipedia norms, would you tell me more about that? Thanks! Kenllama/(talk) 17:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure -- the basic point you guessed: disambiguation pages disambiguate existing Wikipedia articles. I was thinking about the list that was already there as I walked earlier this afternoon, though. I think List of Sts. Eusebia, for instance, might be a good place for the list you had on the dab. I'll go rearrange some of it... -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Heptalogy, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Heptalogy was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD)
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Heptalogy, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated heptalogy for speedy deletion
A tag has been placed on heptalogy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how heptalogy is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}}underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:heptalogy saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please feel free to use deletion review, but do not continue to repost the article if it is deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. -Lo2u(T • C)23:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Franz Ferdinand Hat Note
Thanks for guidance on naming convention. There is a hatnote on the band page, but you have removed the hatnote from the Archduke - either there should be one on both pages or neither. The latter does not seem right. Wardroad (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It needn't be one or the other, in cases where there is a list of people with a given name on a disambiguation page -- usually when the given-name list is too short to bother with splitting the dab and given name article. But in this case there's just the dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please cease and desist from removing the Notability template without reasonable justification
Please cease and desist from removing the Notability template from Paizo Publishing, an article which does not have any reliable secondary sources. There is no reasonable justification for removing the template which was put there to address this problem. The reason why I ask you to do this in the strongest possible terms is that you appear to be POV pushing, as the explanations for removing the template are not supported by the notability guideline WP:CORP and WP:RS which applies to this topic. Unless you adding reliable secondary sources to the article, I would be grateful if you would restore the template. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, EgídioCampos. I don't known enough (or anything) about James C. Hunter to write an article about him. Are there any sources you know of (biographical articles in newspapers, reviews in major newspapers)? I can help with some examples (like William R. Trotter or James Robert Smith). -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD nomination of Heptalogy
An editor has nominated Heptalogy, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heptalogy (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Elasund.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Elasund.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Himura looks like a list of Japanese surname holders rather than a dab. I've been on Hellsing before. hndis lists typically omit the article a/an/the on their entries for some reason. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a given name and not a family name (surname). Not knowing anything about it, I thought it was a family name and not a given name? -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Himura is the family name (surname), and Kenshin is the given name. The intro to Himura Kenshin mentions that the Western order (first name then surname) is Kenshin Himura. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not check notability. I was just setting things in their position, since the existing race redirect should have had an apostrophe anyway. (And I hit upon it from the addition of a hatnote to Eldora Speedway, which I watch.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was quite confused, for a while, by what i could deduce abt the multiple overlapping edits by you, Abtract, and myself. I hope you'll review, below, what i was aware of, and perhaps feel you've been treated a little less cavalierly than it may have appeared. Here are the events that i saw or can now see in the history:
I began a long edit.
You completed an edit, contributing at one of the same spots i intended to.
Abtract moved your contrib to the end. (But i could not distinguish what resulted from what you did, since i relied on the sigs rather than consulting the history.)
I tried to save, got my first ed conflict, concluded you preferred to contrib at the end, and started a new edit. Hoping to both accommodate you and alleviate the confusion i anticipated, i inserted a clarifying subhd & cmt above your contrib, reduced the indentation level on my response to the same solicitation, and inserted it in chronological and logical order after your contrib (which, it turns out, was placed there by Abtract rather than you).
You reverted Abtract's edit.
I tried to save, got my 2nd ed conflict, concluded you'd changed your mind, and overrode your edit, producing what would have existed if i'd finished adjusting to the first ed conf before you'd moved your contrib upward. This seemed reasonable to me for two reasons: my (paranoid!) vision of being at the start of an intolerably long series of ed confs, and my expectation that you'd have readily accepted what was creating in response to (what appeared to be) your work, if the timing had differed (by, perhaps, about the time i'd lost in adjusting to the first ed conf).
You discovered that i'd moved your contrib back down, perhaps (and justifiably) had concerns that multiple colleagues were trying to control where you chose to edit, and in any case undid that part of my edit.
I think i'm going to move my response back following yours (in its original position), similarly indented below what solicited them both. But that'll be after i feel (and not simply know!) that the dust has settled.
If i offended you, i'm sorry, bcz i didn't intend to presume beyond the level of
Hey, i know it's just bad luck, but this is driving me crazy, i hope you'll accommodate my effort to make my task less onerous by putting on you the burden of my in effect insisting you stick to your plan that i've already adjusted to.
If even that presumption offends, i'll consider further, tho at this point i hope you'll accept it as not excessive in my frustrated situation. --Jerzy•t05:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not feel that you were being cavalier in moving my contribution -- I saw the length of your post, and I empathized with your edit summary about the conflicts (and figured it wouldn't have been an issue if the contribution hadn't been moved in the first place). I wanted to restore it to its original position as well, since I had just told the other editor not to re-order other editor's comments within a thread. Thanks for making the effort to provide a detailed explanation here though -- I had only a slight empathy/guess at your goals before. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hunter -
I primarily want to thank you again for weighing in and sharing your expertise on the Talk:Buddha page.
Secondarily, I'd like to explain why I am no longer participating in that discussion. While I have been very frustrated that the current process overturned an important prior consensus on the part of long-time WP Buddhism contributors in a manner that in my mind violates WP:CONSENSUS and I have concerns that the current two-page solution changed one useful page into two half-useful pages (which I suspect, due to possible POV and brevity, will likely be subject to habitual future changes), I understand the ultimate WP-format-related basis for this change and recognize that I am currently in the minority (especially handicapped by time). So, I think it best I simply withdraw. (As an aside, perhaps the talk page entry heading "This is a dab page" should be changed to "This is^was a dab page" ;-) ).
Thank you so much again for your thoughtfulness and good will. I enjoyed reading your intelligent voice on WP. I wish you much happiness.
Is what (s)he said at "Kaito changes" true? I'm trying to talk to the user, and the person refuses to listen. Another thing, does WP:WAF apply to dabs? Reason why I ask this is because I like to clarify that the character is fictional, as I did to Ichigo before it was reverted. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAF does not apply to dabs, since they aren't articles. I think "character" implies "fictional" well enough though -- "a fictional doctor" or "a doctor character" would mean the same thing, and "a character" is sufficient for dabbing most of the time. Others checked in on. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A number of these dabs are messed over. I'll edit "fictional character" to "character" based on this discussion. Why did you return "a", "the", etc., to the descriptions here and here? I also don't understand why you changed "Kaitou Kid" to a romaji spelling and italisised (which goes against WP:STYLE) it. Oh, and Abtract marked this for cleanup. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This on article usage. Tagged as surname and dab in the correct, unscrewed places. Don't know the style guideline you're referring to, but as I noted in the edit summary I chose the romaji since it seemed to meet both yours and Abtract's complaints: it's in the article, and it matches the dab title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, name lists typically omit the articles. The character is known as 怪盗キッド in Japan, which has various romanizations, and rather than edit war with Abtract over which to use, if one satisfies you both, so much the better. Yes, disambiguating a term to an article which does not mention that term is usually better served by deleting the entry. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I normally put the surname or given name template directly underneath the section heading, if it doesn't apply to the whole page, but I'm unaware of a guideline on their placement one way or the other. I thikn all the Alucards are mentioned on their linked pages. I restored Jake Ryan from Sixteen Candles, since Sixteen Candles mentions Jake Ryan. Keeping or dropping the articles "a" or "the" from that list is confusing -- normally hndis lists don't have the aticles, but then again normally hndis lists are more actual people than fictional characters. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The surname pages look fine; I wouldn't edit them if I just came across them. Kaito, I guess Phantom Kid doesn't have to be indented beneath one of the shows he's on. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the term hand phone really is quite common. It's on business cards and adverts all the time with the abbreviation HP. The term is not common in the US. Cheers, Jack Merridew15:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because George Kirrin appears (to someone unfamiliar with the series) to be a first and last name, and such entries are left off of the George page because it would be unwieldy. This may well be an exception. You could bring it up on Talk:George to see if there's any other objection to its inclusion, or create a redirect like George (Famous Five) that points to George Kirrin, and include that on the list so that it's obvious to other dab watchers that the subject is known as just "George". -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the need to keep this page clear of George Bush et al. To avoid argument I'll take up your second suggestion. For info, Enid Blyton's books have sold in vast numbers (Wikipedia says 400 million!) - perhaps mainly in Commonwealth countries, I don't know about your side of the pond. They are much discussed by the chattering classes due to their dated 1950s view of social relations, stereotyping girls and boys etc. George is seen by some as problematic in wanting to be seen as a boy. There is perhaps a nod to George Eliot. Pterre (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, you accuse me of being part of a frothy gang, and go on a profane tear against another editor, while you ignore cites presented. You're a Wikipedia editor; start acting like one, please. Being an admin does not mean being your doormat. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asking you to be a doormat. As I pointed out already, the comment was made on another user's talk page (and not an open article discussion), and you weren't mentioned at all. None of that made it into the article discussion until you added it.
And for the umpteenth time, I am not ignoring your cites, I am contesting the method by which you are utilizing them. Just because a newspaper saves money using less ink by abbreviating for a headline the name Harry Potter doesn't make it notable. It makes it incidental. I believe I've said this a number of times before. Perhaps it is in fact you who are doing a bit of ignoring - or would you prefer the term 'selective hearing'? I am an established Wikipedia editor. I've earned the right to be treated with AGF. If you, as an admin, are unable to muster that, then perhaps you might want to take a break and try seeing things from others' point of view. - Arcayne(cast a spell)17:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And this is why I think you've got blinders on. The cites aren't for headline usage only. Perhaps you missed the cite for The Observer (England) July 22, 2007, which uses HP for Harry Potter in the article text (not in the headline) and doesn't ever spell out "Harry Potter"; it uses HP only. Or the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, July 7, 2007, which spells it out "HP (Harry Potter)" in the text, not in the headline. Here's a new one, going the other way: " Personally, I reckon you're either a Fellowship Of The Rings (FotR) fan or a Harry Potter (HP) girl. In this instance a bit of owning up has to be done: I've read all the HP books...." The Sunday Telegraph, January 6, 2002. That's also in the text, not in the headline. If that will help, I'll add it to the other discussion as well; I stopped digging them up since it was unclear what the problem with the existing cites was. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
my namespace concern
The HP disambig pages was really the wrong spot for that.
I've been involved with the whole tv episode and characters issue. A common argument against doing much about the endless non-notable stuff in that space, and others, is that it's not hurting anything, that the wiki is not paper, and that there is no "clogging-up" of the 'pedia. I don't buy those arguments. Because it's all one main namespace, stuff underfoot has impact outside whatever fan-domain. A great many of the pop-culture articles get their name from something else that is real culture and is truly encyclopaedic. The first example of this I focused on was Command Decision. If you look now, thinks are fairly sensible. However, Command Decision (Dad's Army episode) used to be at Command Decision and most of the others didn't exist. My point is that the pop-culture fans got to the unadorned name first and took it for a derivative topic. This sort of thing happens over and over again and is a huge burden on all manner of editors. This, I think, is a key reason why editors focused outside of specific niches need to take a dimmer view of folks who prattle away endlessly about non-notable subjects. End-of-rant; thanks for reading. Cheers, Jack Merridew12:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don't see the burden. If the others didn't exist, then the episode (if notable enough to warrant an article) was correctly placed at the base name. Once other articles were created, then it should be moved to its new title and the primary topic moved to the base name (or, as in this case with no primary topic) the disambiguation page moved to or created at the base name. I expect it should happen over and over again as the encyclopedia grows. What's the alternative? Now, disallowing non-notable articles is a different thing, but not a Disambiguation Project issue. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a fresh example. See One for the Money. This is currently a disambiguation page; I made it so a few hours ago. It used to be an article about an episode of The Golden Girls. There was a discussion and all of the episodes were redirected to the list of episodes; redirect. Some of the articles had "(The Golden Girls)" appended; but not this one. Since then, a mechanism has been developed to categorize such redirects (i.e. to be able to find the old content and resurrect it; bits or as a unit) and prior to One for the Money becoming a disambig page, this could have been done to this redirect by appending {{ER to list entry|The Golden Girls}}. There were something like 180 articles. A few hours ago, I notice someone trying to make a dismabig page out of this redirect [3]. I fixed it up. The question remains; what about the non-notable article underneath this disambig page? The page histories could be split (I think) creating One for the Money (The Golden Girls) which could be tagged with the ER template. This is a burden and it goes on and on into the future. Cheers, Jack Merridew13:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't really address your points. Non-notable articles happen, they get created in large numbers daily. A lot go away, but often not any too quickly, and their transitory presence roils the water in their wake; they leave redlinks, watchlist entries, and all manner of other bits behind and these all have to be twiddled with by people later. On the Command Decision pages, I don't see the episode as notable (the sources, last I looked, were the director's own book), so I don't believe it ever should have been created; others see it differently.
I guess what I'm getting at is that deleting a non-notable article is not the end of it; the clean-up work must continue and this should lead to a stricter attitude towards creation of inappropriate articles in the first place. Cheers, Jack Merridew14:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Heros" is an unsuitable title because the primary meaning of heros is "hero" in general.
Of course there could arguably be an article "Heros (Thrace)" or Thracian horseman. Since your stub had practically no content, and there seemed little chance of any more content ever turning up, I have moved what there was to the current Paleo-Balkans mythology article, together with material from other scattered stublets. I have not deleted a single letter of the content of your stub. As an admin, you should know better than idly allege "deletion" when none has occurred. If you insist for some reason that the article needs to remain separate, you can move it to Heros (Thrace), and I'll just slap a {{merge}} template on it. --dab(𒁳)13:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you are not making sense. Surely you appreciate the difference between merging and deleting? I am really not too keen to point out Wikipedia fundamentals to somebody with 17,000+ edits, so perhaps you could try to explain the rationale behind your behaviour? dab(𒁳)18:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not my stub; someone else created it; I only happened upon it when the db was malplaced (WP:MDP). But I appreciate the difference between merging with consensus and merging without it. The primary meaning of the Greek word ἥρως is hero in general, but I don't know that the primary topic for the Wikipedia article Heros should be the article Hero -- it seems unlikely that someone looking for Hero would enter Heros. ἥρως should certainly redirect to Hero though (and does, I see). If there is consensus for the merger, then Heros (disambiguation) should be moved to the base name, or perhaps Heros genus should, or Heros might still redirect to Paleo-Balkans mythology. There doesn't seem to be any discussion on it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was, and still am, perfectly prepared to discuss the merger reasonably. In "reasonably" I would not include allegations of "deletion" or similar. JHunterJ, I do not have the impression you have a basic grasp of this issue. The Thracian horseman is also known as "the Thracian Heros", viz., he is a heros, but when it comes to Thrace, he came to be "the Heros". "Heros" is not originally his proper name. He is also known as the Heros Karabazmos. He is a heros, known as Karabazmos, but as his importance grew also simply as "the heros". Are we agreed on this? I really cannot imagine why you would argue that Heros, or even Heros (mythology) should redirect to something Trace-specific, seeing that we are not Thracian Wikipedia. --dab(𒁳)11:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it alone. It appears to me that there is a difference between the Greek word transliterated heros and the English hero, and that, in the English Wikipedia, heros would indicate the user was looking for something other than hero. But, as you say, I may not have a basic grasp of classical studies. At least the dabs aren't pointing the wrong way. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}
){kind=link}