User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I'm sure you can help here...

Hello. This is my first attempt to contact an individual here. So I hope I am doing so correctly.
Why am I here?
I saw the work you did in UNSCRAMBLING the Selena Gomez "Kiss & Tell" Album page. so you came to mind when I see this issue.

Hollywood Records

" [name changes daily??] is the highest selling artist on Hollywood Records."
"Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." but NO reference is EVER given.
I've seen Hilary Duff, Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana, Jonas Brothers in quick succession, ALL with no reference!
Any/ALL attempts I make to notate that proper procedures should be followed are ignored.
Thought you might be interested in moderating the page?
Iknow23 (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't want to add that page to my Watchlist. You might raise the issue at WP:WP MUSIC though, if your note on Talk:Hollywood Records doesn't help. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I posted it at the Talk Page there. Thanks.
Iknow23 (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tofurky

A tag has been placed on Tofurky, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Tofurky and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 24.215.113.133 (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Primary Topics: Why and Which

My enthusiasm to polish up this essay is lagging. As a veteran disambiguator, do see merit it completing the effort - and have you any comments? (John User:Jwy talk) 20:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I will take a look, possibly by this evening. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Negociant -> Negotiant

Hi, I noticed you made the above change on a number of wine articles, please be more careful when using AWB as negotiant is an incorrect replacement, it should be negociant (or ideally have the accented é) which has a specific meaning/definition in regards to wine. Camw (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Ideally, foreign terms would be nested within {{lang}} templates, which would protect them from automated non-fixes, but I will update the Typo list. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Redirect on the Ohio Article

Ryecatcher773 relocated here from User talk:Ryecatcher773#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken

While my primary concern as a proud Ohioan is that the article is representing Ohio accurately, this particular instance is a pissing contest that boils down to a superiority issue. I stake this claim on previous (and similar) experiences on the matter.

The redirect was done out of a sense of accuracy. The link wasn't broken (which, incidentally, wasn't my claim in the first place). While it's true, the redirect for soccer is automatic, the sport we (as Americans) call soccer is officially known to the rest of the world as Association Football, and the WP article about it is subsequently named accordingly, regardless of what we want it to say. The name visible in the article, 'soccer', was unchanged. The problem that the editor had with my change is common in such arguments: because the US perspective stubbornly holds football as something played in the NFL. Not only is it done in complete disregard of precedence (American football came much later), there is an overt bias in the US against using the international term (which is to say the universally correct) for the game.

The link 'Soccer' leads to the article for 'Association Football' anyway, so really, what's the beef with making the link 100% accurate? What's the risk? Someone who does not know any better might otherwise learn something? And unlearn their Ameriocentric viewpoint on an international phenomenon? God forbid anyone is exposed they might not have otherwise known.

What you're supporting in your argument is, effectively, just a pissing contest by someone who wants to establish a bias -- and regardless of whether or not the link works either way, the name soccer (which is derived from the word Association, and was used to delineate Rugby Football, Australian Rules Football and Gaelic Football long before American Football ever came into play). And in this case, couching the argument in WP:NOTBROKEN rules is inconsistent with the concerns given as the rules rationale -- the main principle being the possible establishment of a future article. In this case, 'Soccer' will not be established as a future article -- the term is idiomatic to the US.

Wikipedia is an international idea. Whatever the case, the proper compromise for those not familiar with the term soccer in other countries, and people not familiar with the term Association Football in the US, is to list it as a disambiguated link. It hurts no one, except for the staunch post-modern Manifest Destinarian. And it helps unaware American readers (if they even notice such minutiae at all) discover something new, which would seem a positive goal for WP. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the link Soccer leads to the Association football article anyway, so indeed, what's the beef with using the redirect rather than trying to fix something that's not broken? Accuracy was not improved (or worsened). After your edit, the Ohio article did not look or act any differently, except for the hover text on the soccer link. And all this is covered in WP:NOTBROKEN, which is not "couching" but "guiding". In any event, you made an edit and were reverted. WP:BRD: if you want to make the change on Ohio, use Talk:Ohio to reach consensus. If you wan to change the "not broken" guidelines, use WT:R. If you want to get rid of the soccer redirect, Talk:Soccer. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you overlooked the point I was making about the 'hover text' serving as a tool for educating those that don't know any better. But, that's hardly a concern of most editors from what I've seen. Incidentally, if you haven't already considered this guideline: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, then give it a look. I argue that my un-redirecting serves a minor, but meaningful purpose. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know WP:IAR. If you want to apply it, again, see WP:BRD and then the appropriate talk page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Db-disambig

What case does you new bullet point cover that wasn't already covered? --Cybercobra (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

When the supposed disambiguation page doesn't end in "(disambiguation)". Normally the only topic should be moved to the base name (clobbering the useless dab), or the base name should become a redirect to the only topic, or (if there are no topics), the dab should be deleted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

{{db-move}} takes care of the first case and the second one doesn't require deletion. Perhaps change to just 0 topics = delete, regardless of page name? --Cybercobra (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense, sure. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Daisy

Re your deletion of one of my amends. The Daisy (given name) article is not a disambig page - it's an article. Therefore, can you suggest an appropriate page to disambig individuals such as Daisy McAndrew? Alternatively I could reverse your deletion or set up a new disambig page for people (although this would add an extra layer. Folks at 137 (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Lists of people who share a given name (or surname) do not go on disambiguation pages -- they go (if anywhere) on articles, and there's a project for it Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy. You can try adding such a list of people with the given name "Daisy" to Daisy (given name), similar to the list on Juniper (given name), of, if the consensus there is to keep a list of name-holders off the article, create a separate list article such as List of Susans and link it from Daisy (given name). But disambiguation pages are not the place for them when the anthroponymy articles exist (WP:DABNAME). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

All news to me! Never heard of anthroponymy (and my spell checker is also ignorant of it)! The project page seems to say that it's concerned with people's names, both given and family - correct? Had a look at WP:DABNAME, but couldn't see the relevant section - please quote it to me. If the intention is that names are to be removed from existing disambig pages, then good luck, it seems to have been the (heretofor) standard and many editors use them, eg, Cunningham, Frederick, [[etc, and a change may cause confusion as well as an extra link to be followed in some cases, such as George. I'm not sure I see any practical advantage in the change nor any disadvantage in the common practice. Has a consensus been achieved on this across Wiki, if so, when? Regards. Folks at 137 (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Odd, WP:DABNAME and MOS:DABNAME go to different places -- mea culpa, I meant the second one. Thanks for the good luck wishes. Yes, consensus has been formed; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy#Background reading. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I have acquired a new standard! In MOS:DABNAME, however, there is the sentence "For short lists of such persons, new sections of Persons with the surname Xxxx and/or Persons with the given name Xxxx can be added below the main disambiguation list." This seems to allow short name lists to share general disambig pages, n'est ce pas? If so, how did the Daisy example contravene it? I don't mean to be argumentative (wiki is a place of calm away from my daughters), it does seem reasonable that large name lists should be isolated - just curious. An additional thought - it might be useful to alert or remind editors via appropriate project pages, eg, biography, military biography, etc. Folks at 137 (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as a convenience when there is not separately anthroponymy article to hold the list of name-holders, the guidelines note that short lists of such might be included at the bottom of a dab list even though they aren't ambiguous, until such as time as they can be split off to a proper anthroponymy article. Since the anthroponymy article in the case of "Daisy" already exists, there's no reason to include the non-ambiguous entries on the dab pages until it's created. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

As I Lay Dying

As someone who was involved in previous discussions, please be aware of the current move discussion at Talk:As I Lay Dying (novel), and weigh in if you want. Thanks!--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

MOS:DAB

You make a good point with your edit to MOS:DAB – alpha is certainly not the only way to order entries. However, I do think we should give some sort of guideline for ordering, beyond the format of the target article's title and how "common" it is, which can be somewhat vague. How about the following:

To the extent that it is unclear which meanings are the most common, entries within the above groups should be ordered either alphabetically or chronologically. People should typically be alphabetized by last name. Places should be alphabetized by their geographical location, typically a country or state – for example, "Montana" for the article "Butte, Montana".

I actually think this sort of ordering should be stressed over the "common use" criterion, which seems to lead to some very arbitrary ordering choices that I feel hurt navigability. Your thoughts? » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 17:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Common use should remain stressed over other options that are used when the choice of common use becomes arbitrary. I also don't think that it's necessary to specify guidelines for every possible case -- I'd rather let the guidelines guide based on the project's important principles (getting users to the sought articles in the best way) rather than getting down in to the minutiae (which I've seen in the past become additional platforms to launch edit wars from). But new additions could be proposed at WT:MOSDAB to see if there's consensus for them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we just have a different philosophy – I think a more explicit guideline tends to reduce warring and will result in improved navigability. I've taken your advice and brought the idea up on the guideline talk page, here. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 20:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Know

You've recently made some edits and moves to pages related to Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Know. When disambiguating a famous phrase, it seems to me most helpful to the user to start out with the origin of the phrase, in this case with the use of it by Lady Caroline Lamb to describe Byron. The shortened form Mad, Bad and Dangerous has hitherto only been used (as far as recorded by wikipedia) as the album title by Blue Tears, but the phrase hardly belongs to them and it is probable that someone else will want to use it similarly in the foreseeable future. It is therefore clearer and more forward-looking to have the group's name as a qualification of the name of the article about that album. In short, I see your actions as pointless fiddling with something which was perfectly good as it stood. If you want some suggestions of disambiguation articles which really do need sorting out, I can give you some. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

OTOH, I see my actions as useful and improving something which wasn't "perfectly" good. Future Wikipedia can take care of itself, if an when the "probable" additional uses arise, new moves (if the new uses make the existing album non-primary) can then be carried out. Finally, no, thanks, I have no trouble finding disambiguation pages (not articles) which also need sorting out. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Be precise when necessary (the additional disambiguator isn't necessary here). -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Podruznik

Thanks for fixing Phantom Falls by rewording the sentence. This diff suggests that my efforts to AGF and helpfully explain things to someone I thought was a newbie aren't working. I'm less concerned about the civility problem than I am with the user's ownership claims and refusal to engage in constructive discussions or even to use edit summaries, so I don't think a Wikiquette alert is appropriate. I've been thinking conduct RFC but am wondering, given the allegation here that Podruznik is also the indefinitely blocked Briantravelman, whether ANI would be a better option. (I don't see a smoking gun re sockpuppetry but I may be missing something.) I'm not deeply in love with ANI, but I think this needs to be nipped in the bud before it gets out of hand and I'd appreciate your advice. Rivertorch (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've issued a second block for his disruptive editing. Yeah, if this doesn't work, AN/I may be the next best step. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, he'll play nice when his block is over and that will be unnecessary. Sorry it had to reach this point. Rivertorch (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Shells

Hey JHunterJ, since you just handled the merge issue at The Shells, you may also be interested in commenting on the slightly related proposal at Talk:Written Roads#Merge. (Related because it's an album by this band; only slightly because it's a content disagreement, rather than a disambiguation thing.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that difference will be enough to keep my nose out of it. I'm unfamiliar with either of The Shells bands and any of their albums. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. (for what it's worth, I'm not familiar with them either—the major thing under discussion is lack of notability.) Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Tower of Babel

Whether you "believe" or not, it is said that the God of Abraham confounded our speech with diverse languages. So it's amazing to have found one who understands mine. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You've brought a smile to my face. Thanks, and cheers! We'll get to the bottom of this primary topic and dab arrangement soon enough, I think. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

World government (disambiguation)

World government may refer to:

• League of Nations

• United Nations

• International Court of Justice

• Etc.

"A word to the wise is sufficient" .... Since you love DAB pages, I thought you may help out in what I propose above. It may not be easy though. And of course I noticed your technical abilities in this area of Wikipedia. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: At the moment we also have this: World government (whose nature I've commented on at its Talk page). --Ludvikus (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! You make me very happy now by that! --Ludvikus (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

New world order

I'd like the DAB reference to be in the beginning of this string, not the end. In fact, because it's at the end I missed - that why I accidentally created that duplicate DAB now deleted:

"This article is about the use of the term “new world order” in international relations theory. For its use in conspiracy theory, see New World Order (conspiracy theory). For other uses, see New world order (disambiguation)."

--Ludvikus (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's standard to put the general dab last, after a possible secondary meaning. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. But what about breaking it up into two lines - one below the other? I just didn't bother reading the line to the end, and therefore created a duplicate DAB page. But one line below the other would make one realize that there are two hatnotes. What say you to that? --Ludvikus (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Often we try to collapse the hatnotes to as few lines as possible, so that the people who want to read the article don't have to scroll through half a page to get there. I think the problem of not reading to the end is a less frequent one. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

New World Order [notice the caps]

Need your help here too (where I just began another, related to the above - move proposal: [1].

Can you check if (1) all parties are informed, (2) all Wiki Tags and Flags are posted properly? Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your offer to unblock me. I would obviously have accepted your conditions but was so thoroughly disgusted by the ridiculousness of the block that I didn't even bother to sign in for a week anyway. Should a similar situation present itself in the future (as it probably will, as there is no end to certain admins rushing in to block without proper cuase, it seems) and you are around to see it, if your proposed solution is to unblock me but restrict me from editing the article under dispute I will always pick that option over a block. Too bad other admins don't try things like that before jumping to poorly articulated and unfairly applied blocks. I was just trying to use the same editing rights any other editor has here, but the restrictions against edit warring are so vague and subjective that some people decide to use them arbitrarily. Anyone who reverts any article more than twice in any time period can seemingly be blocked immediately if an admin is in a bad mood or if another editor makes enough deceptive accusations loudly enough. Wikipedia has long needed an overhaul so rules are applied consistently and not just on an individual whim. DreamGuy (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. I assumed that that was the reason. Sorry to have lost your editorship for a week. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Lincoln redirecting to Abraham Lincoln

I'd support it. Please put it in an all-new thread and notify the disam project and the bio project. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I will propose that, but it will be a little later in November. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Shells (disambiguation)

Nothing links to this dab page, and with the band article deleted it would probably make sense to delete the unnecessary dab page as well. Although, since I think some editors are unhappy about the AfD closing, it may be best to wait a few weeks or so to see if a DRV comes up, just to save effort in the long run. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed -- I have no attachment to it, but figured it could stay "set aside" for a little while. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Smith

Thank you for sorting this one out. I had initially intended to write articles about other cricketers which would be named Thomas Smith (cricketer) — sometime, when I get around to writing other articles about cricketers named Thomas Smith, I may need to move the article back to Thomas Smith (cricketer, born 1848), but I haven't planned writing any of the other articles yet - including Thomas Smith (cricketer, born 1854), Thomas Smith (cricketer, born 1905), Thomas Smith (cricketer, born 1898), Thomas Smith (cricketer, born 1899), and, eventually, Thomas Wesley-Smith, but this has yet to happen.

At which point, obviously, I will change Thomas Smith (cricketer) into a disambiguation page.

All the best. Bobo. 16:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

All that's fine, except for the last thing. Thomas Smith is the disambiguation page for articles that are ambiguous with the title "Thomas Smith". Thomas Smith (cricketer), as long as it is ambiguous, should be a redirect to the only necessary dab page. See WP:D#Incomplete disambiguation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

True true. Thank you for picking me up on this one - my thoughts can be mightily scrambled at the best of times. ;) Thank you for understanding. I promise I will get around to doing this eventually. Bobo. 16:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Done

Thank you. I've added all disambiguated content to Thomas Smith page. Bobo. 17:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure, and thanks for making the new articles. I also edited it to place the tag and link to the sports section. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, JHunterJ. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. The thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)

You recently commented in the discussion concerning consensus on this page. You may be interested to know that the conversation appears to still be ongoing and another used has removed the section, in it's entirety, from the page. Dpmuk (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)