User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 38

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. Ben MacDui 18:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The article lead with "Expression error: Unexpected < operator" after your edit and didn't after my undo. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that appears to be an issue with the template. Will investigate.   ~ 

dgaf)  21:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

It appears that {{

dgaf)  22:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks! I didn't see anything wrong with your edit, but I didn't have the chance to dig in then. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding your changes of the names of the

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]

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]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ravenhill (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 10 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

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

]

First of all, there is already an article on another uprising:

Wallachian uprising a disambig, if this is really an issue. Dahn (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

First of all, I could find no

MOS:DABMENTION of "Wallachian uprising" on any of those pages. Feel free to add that information to the articles if this is really an issue. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

To me, it quite clearly isn't. Neither is it to the editor who created it under

Wallachian uprising (sans date). But is it an absolute must that we do? Dahn (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Please see

MOS:DABMENTION. Feel free to return it to Wallachian uprising of 1821

, since that was also an acceptable title. It's the disambiguation without ambiguity that's the issue.

I'm okay with that. My philosophy aligns with

WP:BROKE, and that's why I took no objection with a move that was roughly to the same title. Dahn (talk) 14:29, 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

]

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

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

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]

There are several baits in that thread that remain unrisen-to. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to close the Dasarahalli, Bangalore Rural RfD, does your offer to do the hist split of Dasarahalli still stand? It looks relatively straightforward, but as it's not my area of expertise rather have you go for it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On it. If you'll close the discussion, I'll handle the rest. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done — thanks! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now history split done as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgeous. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do we do when we have the next article on such a general name? - Rule of thumb: don't move

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]

No. English Wikipedia doesn't follow German Wikipedia policies and guidelines; we have our own. The present situation isn't at all comparable to

WP:PRECISION. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:07, 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]

ps: Do you want to move

See

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 Hands O 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 (

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 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

]

(ec) ps: The Fox Woman, or The Fountainhead is one distinct title, but you could say "A Hungarian Rhapsody", - it's generic, which makes all the difference for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 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

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

]

You get me in the mood to write Symphony for Organ No. 6 (Vierne), and then what? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 24 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]

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

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

]

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]

WP:NOTBROKEN), which I included in the revert edit summaries. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The edits to Agnes Monica's page are not vandalism as the information that is currently on her page is not updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.178.252.250 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

WP:BLP and provide citations for your changes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

When you moved Bray (disambiguation) to

Also Hambleton - 305 errors. Narky Blert (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also Holywell - 209 errors. Narky Blert (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The

WP:FIXDABLINKS. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:55, 1 August 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]

@

WP:FIXDABLINKS is mainly for those who BOLDLY make page moves, we have a dedicated team of users who specialize in DPLs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@Crouch, Swale: Indeed.

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]

The article

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.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

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.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi why not use White Shadows DYK for the last Prep 1 que? JC7V-constructive zone 14:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Beats me. Template talk:Did you know. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 Sunbird talk 21:15, 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 Sunbird talk 21:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wheesung discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page C-Real (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 30 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: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

]

While they both have a back-formed singular, "scissors" is plural; "biceps" isn't. So it's a

Template:R from alternative form (which redirects to Template:R from alternative name). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

How about Template:R from modification? -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

R from modification looks better to be, I agree it doesn't appear to be either of the 2. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you notice the hatnote???? "For the work by Albrecht Dürer, see St. Jerome in the Wilderness (Dürer)". Both should be "Saint" so please move both to the right title & set up a disam page. That would acdtually be doing something useful. Thank you. Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 12 October 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: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]

Shouldn't it have the intro of the fact that their all places in England, to avoid having to repeat that. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:09, 30 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]

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

And Other uses section is supposed to remain short, per

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

]

I'd rather order sections thematically rather than alphabetically, FWIW. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

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]

You're completely wrong about an example being a requirement. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:35, 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

Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area

for detailed guidance.

But you won't even look at the supplement, then at least infer from the guideline page. –DA1 (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I do subsection. Just with enough coherence to be useful, instead of the overly broad "arts & entertainment" catch-all. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

equal Luther monument, de:Lutherdenkmal is (and Luther monument should be) a general article about monuments for the reformer, - not for a specific one. There are many. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please expand Luther Monument with the relevant information, or return Luther Monument (Worms) to the base name until someone is ready to do so. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the redirect, I expanded the dab, fixed the links, made a Wikidata connection, and will expand further - on DYK day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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]

The ambiguous title is "Luther Monument", so the dab would be there or at Luther Monument (disambiguation). No idea about naming articles about kinds of monuments. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the German article? It's not a dab. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Mein Deutsche ist sehr schlecht. But the arrangement of articles on German Wikipedia is a different issue. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need German to see that it is a long list of monuments, with a short introduction. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it doesn't have much to do with avoiding the arrangement of Luther Monument being a redirect to Luther Monument (Worms). That's been addressed now. If you'd like to make a list article List of Luther monuments or somesuch, that works too. Or an article Luther monument discussing the topic of monuments of Luther. With English capitalization, however, it's likely that the reader entering "Luther Monument" is not looking for the generic topic, but that would be a valid arrangement (Luther Monument redirecting to Luther monument). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:32, 8 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]

Moycarky (civil parish). If the parish is the primary topic for "Moycarky" (which it was set up to be, since that's the topic you landed on from Moycarky, it didn't need the qualifier. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:30, 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

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have reverted an edit of yours on this article, and would like to remind you about

I'd like to remind you about

WP:OWN. Your undo summary, "not an improvement", was meaningless. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Patton#Requested move 9 December 2018. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 22:49, 9 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":

1. on George S. Patton via redirect (status quo)
2. on Patton (disambiguation) by moving the disambiguation page to the base name
3. on Patton (surname) by moving the surname article to the base name.

-- JHunterJ (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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]

		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|Talk 01:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MarnetteD! Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you as well! -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{

subst:User:Flaming/MC2008

}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

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]

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]

Example pictured. If I have a wish free: assume that I made a name giving it thought. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 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]

MOS:DABEXT, and see Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Items only in other-language Wikipedias or Wikidata. (I added the redirect hatnote to First Epistle to Timothy.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:53, 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

]

The best wuld be to translate the politician, make him Casten Koch, and move the other to Carsten Koch (disambiguation), the politician seems clearly the primary topic. More next year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 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]