User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 30

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.

Ship index articles

There is discussion at WPT:SHIPS that is related to the naming of a ship index article for the HMS Hood series of articles. Can you hold off on making any further changes to ship index articles until we make a determination on how the Project would like to proceed? —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Note that WP:SETINDEX already specifies the usual naming of set index articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

On the off chance you don't know where this is heading...

[1] [2] EEng (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was unaware of those ANIs; I was only aware of where this might be heading based on my own interactions with Incnis Mrsi in the past. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Gambia

I rv'd your change to proper noun because you introduced an error. However, looking into "the Gambia", nearly all of our subarticles (where the diff would show up) use lower-case "the". We might want to remark that caps vary, but I don't think we want to say that Gambia has a cap "The" while other names do not. — kwami (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

relocated to Talk:Proper_noun#The Gambia

Pawpaw, disambiguations for plant common names.

I'm sorry, but I just can't find anything in WP:MOSDAB that seems to support your edit summary "use the redirect matching the ambiguous title per WP:MOSDAB" when you reverted my edit to Pawpaw, replacing the link to Asimina with Pawpaw (genus). I do see that WP:MOSDAB says "In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary. In most cases the title of the target article will be an expansion or variation of the term being disambiguated". WP:MOSDAB does seem to discourage piped links and linking to redirects (Pawpaw (genus) is a redirect). While many articles can indeed be disambiguated via longer titles that expand on the ambiguous term, I do not believe that ambiguous common names for plants should be disambiguated via expanded titles. WP:FLORA prefers using the scientific name as a title for plant articles. Common names are often ambiguous for plants, scientific names rarely so (which is major reason why the WP:FLORA guideline was adopted). The place names discussed at Paw Paw are appropriately disambiguated with expanded titles. I can't even imagine how to dissambiguate John Smith without expanded titles. In contrast, the plant common name, Betony is readily disambiguated via scientific names. I hope you wouldn't argue for using expanded titles like Betony (Pedicularis) and Betony (Stachys) as redirects to the articles at the scientific names in the Betony disambiguation.

Your interpretation of WP:MOSDAB also led to your moving Spikenard (disambiguation) to List of plant species known as spikenard and Snakeroot (disambiguation) to List of plant species known as snakeroot, with the parenthetical disambig pages deleted. In both cases, unexpanded Spikenard and Snakeroot are the best titles for a disambiguating page. I don't understand why you object to these being disambiguations (admittedly, spikenard needs to have content about the species Nardostachys jatamansi split into an article with that scientific name before it became a disambig.) Internal wikipedia links to ambiguous senses of spikenard and snakeroot are never going to use the titles you moved the disambiguation articles to. Both snakeroot and spikenard should be disambiguating titlesPlantdrew (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

relocated to Talk:Pawpaw#Use of redirects

Re: Ugetsu (disambiguation)

I replied to your reversion on the talk page. I can appreciate that at present the film article has the dominant name, and so the DAB page looks better with it at the top. However, its primary topic status is problematic/disputed, and the only reason JoshuSasori's move request was accepted (according to your comment) was a formality regarding recent moves and opposition. However, JS has for several weeks now been going out of his way to revert all of my edits to Japanese cinema articles, so his move request probably should have been given better context. How does one go about demonstrating that one is the primary topic when the other article was created two years earlier? It's very difficult for me to call in the opinions of the Wikipedia community, because my responding to JS's unusual personal attacks and his continuing to make these attacks usually makes the debate illegible very quickly. elvenscout742 (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Continued on Talk:Ugetsu (disambiguation)

Menon (disambiguation)

Hi, in this edit, you put the Menon (disambiguation) article into better disambiguation page form. But in doing so, you also removed the information that Menon and Meno (Ancient Greek: Μένων) represent the same Greek name. In fact, there's a case for merging Menon and Meno (disambiguation) -- both forms are used in English, though Meno is more common for the Platonic dialog and Menon for the various Pharsalians. Of course, the spelling Meno is not used for (e.g.) the French cookbook author. Not sure what the ideal solution here is, but I do think the identity of Menon, Meno, and Μένων is relevant to disambiguation. --Macrakis (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Μένων doesn't exist, and disambiguation pages are for navigation; if there's an encyclopedic place for the information that Menon and Meno represent Μένων, it should be in an article. I believe readers who reach the disambiguation page will be able to navigate to their sought articles without the translation information. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Kaeso

Check it out, Kaeso is a disambiguation page. The page on the actual name is Caeso (praenomen). Q·L·1968 ☿ 02:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Woops, I take it back. I was not aware of the {{Given name}} class of articles. Fair enough—that is a better match after all. Q·L·1968 ☿ 03:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Harry Dunn

Thanks for your message on my talk page. Very probably you are watching, but to make sure I thought I would let you know that I have replied there. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Songshan

I prefer my last revision of the page vastly to yours, for several reasons: 1) The configuration "Songshan (松山) or (嵩山) may refer to" fails to distinguish clearly which terms are written as which. 2) Your revision cherry-picks, and chooses to link to the List of township-level divisions of X series instead of, more logically, the parent county. 3) Your revision, except for Songshan, Guizhou, fails to mention the parent county which is crucial identifying information. 4) You and Ryulong failed to explain the removal of ≥two entries. GotR ^Talk 16:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

moving to Talk:Songshan

Name disambiguation

Hey, what's up. I ended up closing this mess as keep and repopulate. I'm not sure who all depopulated them in the first place, if you know would you be able to help me repopulate them? e.g. direct me to who did it and when so I can look in their contributions and go through and undo the edits? Thanks much. Peace, delldot ∇. 21:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I bulk-depopulated them by undoing Carlossuarez46's edit to {{disambiguation/cat}}, which was the edit that bulk-populated his new creations in December; he reverted my reversion and then Xezbeth re-reverted him.[3] Would you reconsider the suggestion in the discussion to rename the categories to something that is not wrong? Carlossuarez46 was also agreeable to that suggestion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. That's good that it won't involve a million edits to articles to repopulate it. I didn't mean to get into the middle of something contentious by closing that discussion, I was just trying to clear out the CFD backlog!

I don't think I'd be empowered to take the close in the direction of the rename, there just wasn't enough discussion of that in the discussion. Only two of the other contributors commented on it (albeit both to support). I feel like it'd be kind of renegade of me, you know? But that doesn't mean another, separate rename discussion couldn't take place. I feel like it's possible that a new name would be the consensus, you just can't tell that from that particular discussion. Sorry to not be of more help. Peace, delldot ∇. 02:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That's silly. The categories were created last month with no discussion. The three commenters on it (including the editor who created it last month) obviously have more consensus than the factually incorrect name that was chosen by the creator. But I'll do it myself. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That's cool, I don't have a problem with you doing that, thanks for taking on the task. delldot ∇. 16:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Response

That was not the closed outcome of the CFD; if you want to make the change, you're an admin and have that power, but I'm not going to do something contrary to the close because around here no good deed goes unpunished. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• I guess from the above comments, just read now, that you've volunteered to make that change. As said in the CFD, I won't challenge it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, done. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think we should also undo Packman's start to fixing things one by one. He didn't realize what the task would entail. LOL. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

USS Monitor page

G'day, just wondering what the rationale was behind the List of ships named USS Monitor was? Given there are only two listed, shouldn't they just be disambiguated with a hatnote rather than a list article or even a disambiguation page? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't create it, so I don't know the rationale. I agree it disambiguation isn't needed, and I moved it from USS Monitor (disambiguation) and then deleted that redirect. But it's a set index article, not a disambiguation page, so in theory it is an encyclopedia list article. You can question at Talk:List of ships named USS Monitor or user prod/AfD normally. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Zero dark thirty (disambiguation)

Hi -- I wondered if you'd be willing to move Zero dark thirty (disambiguation) to Zero Dark Thirty (disambiguation)? My db-move request was denied for nonsensical reasons. Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment regarding Lynn Stewart (disambiguation) Move

JHunterJ, per your closing comments on Talk:Lynn Stewart#Requested move, just wanted to say that I tried to move Lynn Stewart over Lynn Stewart (disambiguation) myself, but by that time, there was already more than one line on the page history Lynn Stewart, which blocked Lynn Stewart (disambiguation) from being moved over it by a non-administrator user per WP:MOR. (Otherwise, I would have just done the move myself, but had to make that request when I ran across that block.) Either way, thanks for letting me know that the move was technical in nature; I was not sure if it was or not. Steel1943 (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem. You're right, it's nothing you could have done yourself; the previous editor could have done this, which is why I considered it technical. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, I was wondering why it wasn't done that way in the first place. Cheers! Steel1943 (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Mount Tai and tautologies

Not only does WP:NC-ZH#Place names ban monikers such as "Mount Taishan" (instead of Mount Tai), "Taihu Lake" (instead of Lake Tai or Tai Lake), or "Xiangjiang River" (instead of Xiang River), I fail to see how each of the terms in quotes are tautologies. The original Chinese names are 泰山, 太湖, and 湘江; 山 (shān), 湖 (hú), and 江 (jiāng) translate to "mountain", "lake", and "river", respectively. Faithful (and quality) English translations avoid the redundant, and what makes each of the longer names textbook definition tautologies, "shan", "hu", and "jiang". GotR ^Talk 01:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I am aware of the translation. You mistake "tautology" for "redundancy". But you should instead propose the deletion of the redundant-name redirects (which are not in violation of the naming conventions, being redirects to the properly formed title. I used Taishan mountain because that was the only redirect that used the ambiguous title "Taishan" instead of the other disambiguation page's "Tai Shan", see? -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Typo

For convenience of readers - Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Putumayo - Did you mean "if" instead of "it"? Pedro Gonzalez-Irusta (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JHunterJ. You have new messages at Talk:Lift#Primary topics.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Clutter etc

I think I felt that in Treasure Island Blind Pew was such a tiny proportion of the article that a redirect hatnote might be cluttery - imagine if a handful more of the minor characters were in similar circumstances. Would you redirect to the section, and put the hatnote there? Or redirect to section and leave hatnote miles away at the top of the article? Or just redirect to the article, with hatnote at the top? But I don't feel strongly, and thanks for tidying up anyway.

In general I don't believe in the "it's clutter" argument, and would be happy to see hatnote links to dab pages for all disambiguated titles!

Have you had a look at Talk:Soviet_(disambiguation)#Suggested_move? All good knockabout stuff, with the question of where the Soviet redirect ought to point as a subplot (4500+ incoming links, and periodically retargetted by assorted editors!). I've just cleaned up the dab page, though I don't imagine it'll stay the way I've put it. PamD 15:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, pointing the redirect to the section and putting the redirect hatnote there would work, and keep the top even tidier. I wouldn't redirect to the section and put the hatnote at the top; wouldn't help the readers who need it.

I commented on Talk:Soviet just ahead of your comment. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tabitha (disambiguation)

Greetings! Can you clarify your !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tabitha (disambiguation)? It has been relisted for discussion because a reviewer found consensus to be unclear. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

About your reverting Midstream (petroleum industry) to Midstream

Hello, JHunterJ:

I don't want to start a debate, but anyone who is really familiar with the petroleum industry would realize that upstream. midstream and downstream are the three major sectors of that industry ... and that they are all equally important.

What was wrong with leaving it as Midstream (petroleum industry)? Why did it bother you? Was it doing some sort of harm? What is your justification for moving it to Midstream? mbeychok (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The three articles are equally titled "Upstream", "Midstream", and "Downstream". The articles on those topics that happen not to be the primary topics for those titles need qualifiers; this means that the "Upstream" article gets the title Upstream (petroleum industry), since the topic is not the primary one for "Upstream". "Downstream" is similiar. "Midstream" differs in that it is the primary topic for "Midstream", so it does not need a qualifier. Wikipedia does not add qualifiers to all titles within a set just because some elements of that set have qualifiers; see WP:PRECISION. The addition of qualifiers (or the absence of them) has no bearing on the relative importance of things with different titles; it's strictly an artifact of the technical limitation that keeps multiple articles from having the same title. The "bothers you", "harm", and "justification" questions are all either answered by WP:PRECISION or are starting a debate, which I will believe you don't want to start. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, JHunter: Thank you for your response. This my last word on the subject and then no more. There are times when just plain common sense should overrule "policy" ... this is one of those times. Regards, mbeychok (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Except that in this case common sense aligns with policy. Trying to force consistency in disambiguating qualifiers on titles is one of those foolish consistencies that common sense avoids. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

notification of current state of work title capitalization rules discussion over at WT:MoS

Hi. As you're one of those folks who contributed to the work title capitalization rules discussion over at WT:MoS but then seemed to tune out (and therefore – as opposed to the "MoS regulars" – probably didn't follow it any further), I just briefly wanted to point you towards my latest post there (beginning with "As there has been little progress"), which might well be the last overall: I'm phasing out, and since there hasn't been much input by other users lately, it's likely that over the next few days, the thread'll die (i.e., disappear into the archives) without there having been made any changes to the MoS. So I'd be much obliged if you took the time to stake your support for or opposition to my proposal (should I also have put an RfC tag there?) and – unless it's accepted (I'm not holding my breath...) – maybe even considered keeping the debate going. Thanks. (I'm aware of the unsolicited nature of this message, so if you feel molested by it, I apologize.) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:RM

Hi JHunterJ, what's the correct template to use for Strada ? Thanks, Azylber (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Propose the multi-move on Talk:Strada to move Strada to Strada (restaurant chain) (and update all of the incoming links that intend that article) and move Strada (disambiguation) to Strada. This is not a speedy technical request. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Take a look: Talk:Strada Azylber (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Tagging vadalism

Just wondering, is there any reason you didn't give User:‎ 64.151.3.134 a vandalism template on his talk page after you reverted -12,968 bytes of vandalism from him on this edit of Terraria? I have tagged him with uw-vandalism4im due to the excess and multiple edits of vandalism being his only edits.
Cheers, IVORK _Discuss 08:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems IP editors with a brief initial burst of test deletions like that often simply stop when first reverted, even without the warning. Which seems to be the case here: I reverted it 6 minutes after its last deletion, and it went silent, which was five hours before the warning. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Subject to WP:AN/I

You have been reported in WP:AN/I#Dispute with JHunterJ. You can comment there. --George Ho (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

People at WP:AN/I want me to apologize to you for making accusatory remarks and childish behavior. Well, do I must? I can't do that just because they recommend so. Have you been feuding with Noetica? If not, I should apologize. There is no excuse for accusing you of doing this way. When I saw arguments between Noetica and you, I take Noetica's because of his convincing words. Yours sounded to me as if you are too rules-fanatic just because of one discussion and elsewhere. Fortunately for you, he is retired. Nevertheless, I handled my reactions very poorly and childishly, and I should have confronted you about them first.

As for accusing you of "lacking common sense", I should apologize for that. There is no excuse for that either. In fact, I currently don't know your acknowledgement of "common sense", and I certainly do not know how you can react to numbers. You and I react to numbers differently, so I don't know if you can forgive me for that.

Accusing you of stooping low and mocking people... I did accuse you because I see you trying to prove how weak people's arguments are. I am unsure whether I should apologize to you for that or not. As for the IP user, he did reply in Talk:The Boys in the Band (film). Maybe if you have given other people chances by communicating with others in good faith, including IP users, as I did, I wouldn't accuse you of them. I will find evidence that my accusations of them are inflammatary and offensive, so I can apologize to you if I find proof that I'm at fault. --George Ho (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, mostly. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Return of a banned user

Hi JHunterJ. I'm wondering if you remember from years ago a user Eep² (talk · contribs) who tried to transform the disambiguation system contrary to consensus and eventually got banned. I have a strong suspicion that 98.207.41.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the return of the banned user, and he or she appears to be starting down a similar road. As a first step I thought I might ask you if you have a similar impression when you see their contributions. Thanks. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I just found Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Eep² where Eeky (talk · contribs) was called out, I had forgotten about Gamer Eek (talk · contribs) and now am wondering also about Eekerz (talk · contribs). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Good questions, but I don't remember much about Eep²'s particular brand of disruption. The handle choice of Eekerz (talk · contribs) seems to be an indicator towards that part of the conclusion though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Oriya/Odia disambiguation

Hi JHuntrJ. I'm a little surprised at the changes you made to Oriya, splitting out a separate Odia disambiguation page. Surely this is against the disambiguation guidelines, as it creates a disambiguation page of just two items, which should be dealt with instead by hatnotes. Am I missing something? Skinsmoke (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not surely against disambiguation guidelines. Dealing with two items with hatnotes is only appropriate if one of the two items is the primary topic; if there is no primary topic, then a disambiguation page is required even for two items. See WP:TWODABS -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Skinsmoke (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

RPG BLPs

Hi there,

Thanks for checking out the rest of those articles! I know that I struck out Marmell because someone else did come and add some cites, but I left it up there in case you had any more to add. Same thing for Bingle.

If you were interested in checking for any more, how about Colin McComb, Darren Monahan, Darrin Drader, Feargus Urquhart, and Franz Vohwinkel?

Thanks again!  :) BOZ (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)