User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 20

Jim Duncan
Hello, I was wanting to start a page on Jim Duncan, politician and Union Busines Manager of AFSCME Local 52. He is on the Alaska Speaker of the House Page. I'm not sure what 'disambiguation' is, but it would be good to have a page for Mr. Duncan.

Speaker of the Alaska House of Representatives —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.26.33 (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine. The way to do that would be to click through on the red link on the page you linked here, and then add the information for that page. Since there is an article that mentions Mr. Duncan, I will add him back to the disambiguation page with a link to that article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Wagon
Hi JHunterJ,

I noticed that you reverted my move of Wagon, apparently because you believe it to be the primary topic. I respectfully submit that the article as it stands now is not the primary topic and, in fact, there is no primary topic. The Wagon article attempts to be a topic in its own right, but it is fundamentally a dictionary definition of Wagon that regurgitates information readily available in more proper articles, which in turn can be accessed in a much more direct way through the dab.

I first arrived at Wagon while seeking historical information about the small wagons used by children and was surprised to arrive at Wagon--which makes no mention of toy wagons--instead of at the Wagon dab. I expected to arrive at the dab because it is well known that there are many kinds of wagons, and this thinking is supported by a cursory google search, which yields search results full of assorted wagon types (mostly toy wagons, with a smattering of garden wagons, and the occasional railroad or covered wagon) when I search for "wagon". Based on this, I assumed the move to be non-controversial. Even so, I started a discussion about this on the talk page to reach out to anyone who might be watching Wagon, but no other editors took an interest.

Based on this line of reasoning, might you consider undoing your revert? -- Lambtron (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Lambtron. The primary topic seems to be correct, based on an initial glance at the incoming links to Wagon. If there is no primary topic, rather than redirecting the base name to the disambiguation page, the disambiguation page should be moved to the base name. Otherwise it shows up as a problem on the WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages list (which is where I discovered it). Ideally, moving it to the base name would also involve correcting all of the incoming links to point to the correct target, but that's not a hard requirement. (Some of the incoming links need to be changed anyway, like the one from Calvin & Hobbes, since they also intend the toy or one of the other meanings.) WP:RM can be used for the move, or possibly db-movedab on Wagon since there were no objections to your note about the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Pimentel (surname)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Pimentel (surname), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Pimentel. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

RBE (disambiguation)
I'd say that the best title would be simply "RBE". The db-disambig is meant for situations where you have page "X" and page "X (disambiguation)". Nyttend (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * After I left this comment, I saw that you'd prodded it — overall, that's probably the best choice, since a disambiguation page with only one link really isn't helpful. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Co-located to User talk:Nyttend

The Long Winter
Thanks for fixing the mess I inadvertently made of The Long Winter. I wasn't really happy with changing the redirect to a dab, but I didn't know the right way to do things. I do now! -- BPMullins | Talk 02:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Note that only an admin could have made the move, since the base name had history other than being a redirect to the disambiguation page. If you do come across another case where that's needed, you can use db-move to flag the base name page for deletion so that the other page can be moved to the base title, or list it at WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Favour
Hi Hunter, I wonder if you could do me a favour. I am building up to my level 1 year end exams (physics) in the first week of June. I will probably perform better if I keep off wp and concentrate on revision. To this end could you please block me for four weeks? Abtract (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'll leave you able to post to your own Talk page. I'll watch your Talk -- if you decide even that is too much temptation, let me know and I'll turn that part off too. Good luck on your exams! -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help ... results on Friday, I will let you know.Abtract (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 66% so I am pretty pleased. Abtract (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Double-size VGA
Hi. DenisRS and I had a disagreement over this page. I feel that the term DVGA has not been used by anyone (WP:NOTE), on a product that has not even been announced (WP:CRYSTAL), sourced by a tech blog and rumor forum (WP:V) that do not mention the term DVGA or any variant. I'm asking for your opinion before I nominate anything for deletion. HereToHelp (talk to me) 18:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have no objection to its possible deletion. I shuffled it around the way I did so that the creator of the content would still show up as the creator of the content, but I wanted it in an article so the usual mechanisms of verifiability, notability, and reliability could be applied, and it seems like that's what's about to happen. Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Clogher
Your move of the disambig to Clogher over-rode this discussion which IMO is the right solution - Clogher, County Tyrone is clearly the primary topic per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Could you undo your move and allow the move request to complete? Thanks, -- Ja Ga  talk 12:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoever closes that move request can move the disambiguation page back, if needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You made a mistake in moving the page in a middle of the discussion. Don't you think you should undo that? -- Ja Ga  talk  12:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a mistake. Neither Talk:Clogher nor Talk:Clogher (disambiguation) indicate any move request, and redirecting a base name to a " (disambiguation)" title is a mistake (see WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages). Since User:Sarah777 made the one move and requested the other move at around the same time, probably she should have noted the move request on the other two affected talk pages. But in any event, since the move request is not complete, I have not overridden anything, and once it's complete, the completing admin can put all the pages into their proper places. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But it certainly adds to the confusion. Could you drop a note saying it's OK to move Clogher back to the (disambiguation) page if the move is approved? I don't want this move to fail approval because it's been pre-empted by another move. -- Ja Ga  talk 14:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have so commented. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks much. I've been through a lot of hassle to undo an ill-advised good faith move; I was worried this would further derail things. Thanks for the comment. -- Ja Ga  talk 15:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

EA move request
You might want to try clarifying your presentation of the statistics a bit, to spell out that you're saying that of X users who come to the disambiguation page, Y are apparently clicking on the EA link. Although honestly I doubt it'll make any difference. I have no idea why there are so many users who are willing to spend their time participating in the bureaucracy of a move request, but aren't willing to spend thirty seconds reading or understanding the guideline that exactly relates to this situation. And then the closing admin just counts head and doesn't differentiate between the people who just post a burst of drivel and the people who are referring to the guideline and asking questions and making arguments. It's idiotic. Propaniac (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm no doubt too familiar with what I'm trying to say to still say it clearly enough for readers who aren't familiar with the guidelines or how the stats are gatherered. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

EA
Hi, It seems that Xeno, like me, didn't at first see the significance of the traffic stats you quote at the beginning of the latest discussion - ie the place where people coming from Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation will end up. It might be useful if you could add a note there on the lines of "Note that the redirect from EA (video game company) to Electronic Arts was created in September 2009 specifically to measure the number of hits on this link on the EA dab page, and nothing except the dab page links to that redirect." Clever experiment, but I didn't read through enough of the preceding stuff to notice what was going on, and I'm sure a bit more explanation here would help your case. PamD (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- I've added a note to illuminate it (I hope), after another suggestion to that effect above. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Move request
Okay, could you tell me how to proceed with a move request? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Check out WP:RM. Copy the text in the block there, paste it to the end of Talk:Dreamweaver (disambiguation), change "new name" to "Dreamweaver", and replace "A short reason for page name change." with your explanation. Save the talk page. You should also add a note to Talk:Dreamweaver and Talk:Dream Weaver to direct people who watch those pages to the move request. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Naïve (disambiguation)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Naïve (disambiguation), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.topfabrics.com/naive. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I did the right thing, right? It looks like you're working on this page, and I don't know what you're planning to do, so I'll let it be for now.   —  Soap  —  13:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think so. I've completed the split (since disambiguation pages aren't articles and word articles aren't disambiguation pages). I've been warned by CorenSearchBot before when making these splits, and that's okay too I think. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sisters of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary (disambiguation)
Hi, actually I am preparing an article about the Sisters of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary (1857). How would I do that without Sisters of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary (disambiguation) and after all related (reverted) changes ? rgds --Wistula (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me know when it's in the mainspace and I'll restore the dab page (if needed then). The other (and usual) option is to leave the current article at the base name and link to the new page with a hatnote from the existing one. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will inform you. Your second choice seems to be senseful only in cases, that one meaning is a clearly more popular one. I wouldn't be able to say, which of those two congregations might get more visitors, but I believe, the should get treated equal. --Wistula (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Blue-necked, Blue-ring, Blue-rumped, and Blue-spotted
Hi Hunter,

I just got back from a long Wikibreak and received a message stating that you had nominated Blue-necked, Blue-ring, Blue-rumped, and Blue-spotted for deletion. Unfortunately, the discussion ended a week before I got back to find out about it. You may find it strange that, the last time I wrote on your talk page, I gave you a barnstar in congratulations for ensuring that Wikipedia was free from partial title match lists. I am glad that you are so adamant that partial title match lists and disambiguation pages should not exist on Wikipedia. My concern is that the four aforementioned articles are not partial title matches. You yourself have participated in two discussions in the past, here and here, which ended up leaving this kind of disambiguation page alone. If you have not become convinced of the validity of these disambiguation pages, the only proper way to start a deletion discussion is to link to the previous discussions and to call all such disambiguation pages into question at once; there is no call for picking out four for deletion when they all make the same claim to validity. Would you object if I were to recreate the four aforementioned disambiguation pages?

Neelix (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think there would need to be some indication that the linked articles are ambiguous with the disambiguation page title. If they are ambiguous, then yes, it's a valid disambiguation page. But there's no indication that they are ambiguous. (I disagree with the proper approach -- other problem pages may still exist, but that doesn't mean that pages can be addressed as they are uncovered. Similarly, it's "proper" to create one article for one element of a class of things without creating all articles for all other elements of that class.) I wouldn't object if you initiated a Deletion review though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar
P.S. Been meaning to thank you for some time for all the help over the...Yikes!...has it been years? BTW, while choosing the right barnstar, I noticed that there is no Disambiguation Barnstar, but it looks like it is being worked on: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  05:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ShelfSkewed! -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

RFD
Hi! Regarding your edit to RFD, what order have you placed the entries in? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * First, things titled "RFD". Second, things R* F* D*. Third, things with a synonym (foreign language in this case) R* F* D*. Last, codes (IATA code in this case). -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have to admit that I hadn't spotted that. Is that some sort of standard or convention? I gather you prefer that order over alphabetical order? Why? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Putting things with the ambiguous title as their title first is a convention in the guidelines. The rest are open to interpretation. The guidelines don't address acronyms directly, but on "regular" dab pages synonyms go after "direct-match" entries. So it's kind of what I've refined myself after doing lots of them -- in my crystal ball, that's the order of likelihood for a reader hitting "RFD"->Go. I wouldn't quibble about putting the foreign-language or code back in alpha with the rest, but I do think the RFD direct matches should go at the top. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanations. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Phaedrus
I hope my reversion doesn't seem blunt. If you really think ranking three disambig entries according to notability makes sense, then, sure, the fabulist should be second (and if that is considered a correct way to construct disambig pages, please undo me with my blessing). The only point I'm trying to insist be recognized is that the Platonic dialogue is unquestionably the primary usage, as the Google Book Search link in my edit summary establishes. The recent and erroneous placing of the fabulist as primary here on Wikipedia should not be used as support for any future edits: it was a regrettable error. Frankly, Phaedrus should redirect to the dialogue, with a hatnote for disambiguation. The only reason I did it the way I did was out of an excess of caution. Wareh (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Chronological order doesn't seem an improvement over the recommended dab order (WP:MOSDAB):
 * Articles with a clarifier in parentheses: e.g., Moss (band)
 * Articles with a clarifier following a comma: e.g., Moss, California
 * Articles with the item as part of the name: e.g., Spanish moss as part of a Moss dab page (Only include articles whose subject might reasonably be called by the ambiguous title.)
 * --JHunterJ (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wheal
Thanks for helping to sort Wheal out Northernhenge (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

An unfortunate typo
I see that, for the time being, we have a disagreement. I just noticed from my "contributions" list that in a recent edit to Papa Stour I used the word "polices" when it should have read "policies". I hope this was obvious but I wanted to make sure that you understood that my scorn was directed at the endless and bewildering nature of MOS and not at you, personally. Apologies for any unintentional grief caused. Ben  Mac  Dui  20:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, I didn't notice the typo; my eyes took it in as "policies" as well. Only the intentional grief (at the MOS) received. :-) Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Bi (disambiguation)
Hi HunterJ, There is some funny business going on (again) with this page and re-directs placing a Korean singer on the top of the page. See Special:Contributions/Dreaded22 Just FYI. I reverted, the (new) editor re-reverted. --220.101 (talk) \Contribs 12:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Update: Hi again, FYI was confirmed as a sockpuppet of, who was the editor involved in the Bi_(disambiguation) re-directs. Cheers. --220.101 (talk) \Contribs 14:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had just finished up on Talk:BI. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Cedar wood
Hi, your removal of the section about woods from the Cedar page (a disambiguation page) as part of your cleanup efforts is, I think, very sad. It may be incomplete, but it isn't redundant, not all plants called cedar produce useful wood (Lycopodiaceae would be the most extreme example). A list of woods called "cedar", contrasting the different uses of the different types, was one of the nicer parts of Wikipedia. Nadiatalent (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That may yet make a good list article. That kinds of information content shouldn't be on a disambiguation page, though. If the list of cedar woods is the primary topic of "cedar", that can still be the target of the base name redirect, and the disambiguation page could be moved to Cedar (disambiguation) though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So what would is a list article allowed to be called, "list of woods called cedar:"? Nadiatalent (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but List of cedar woods would be my guess. Or perhaps just an article on Cedar wood (instead of the current redirect to the dab page) that included a section on the types. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

James Stewart (again)
Someone has kicked this hornets nest again. I think temporary redirects to collect statistics might be useful. I was looking for where you have discussed such things before, but can't find it. Could you help me out? I can watch here. . . --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk:Lincoln/Archive 2 and elsewhere in that archive (although they have so far ignored the evidence of the redirect) and Talk:EA (disambiguation) and following sections. See also Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 29 for earlier discussion on Jimmy. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

subst
(and I realize I didn't thank you for the above - thanks!) --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Foster Child
Hi, thanks for your clean up work on Foster Child. I'm just curious: so was the 2007 Philippines film of the same name a hoax, or something? It certainly seemed notable when I came across it. I see from the deletion edit summary that it was a recreation of previously deleted material, but what was the original problem? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually delete the article on the 2007 film. I reverted the move (which made the 2007 title a redirect), reverted the usurptation of the documentary article, and deleted the redirect (since it was no longer accurate). But perhaps the edit history for the 2007 film should be relocated to the 2007 title. I'll take a look and see if I can shuffle it some more. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, does the article on the 2007 title still exist somewhere? If so, please point me to the link, I couldn't find it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted that content, so it's not "live" on the encyclopedia, no. It's here for now, and I'll probably do a few moves and deleted and partial undeletes to take those entries from the edit history over to the 2007 title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you so much for your instructions on moving a page - I didn't realize there was that option and that is much better than cut and pasting. Thanks again!! Kandi111777 (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Vera edit
Hi,

Regarding this edit: WP:PIPING seems to say the exact opposite (that links on a dab page should not be through redirects). The page is at Vision Electronic Recording Apparatus, so shouldn't that be how it's linked on the dab page? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "A redirect should be used to link to a specific section of an article only if the title of that section is more or less synonymous with the disambiguated topic." So a redirect from a "Vera" title is preferable to the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see that it has changed. I'll self-rv. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Mandal
I notice you reverted some changes I made here recently, with the edit summary ">1 meaning doesn't mean one isn't primary, and malplaced dab. Please use WP:RM" which is puzzling; since when do changes to redirects have to go through Requested Moves? I changed this originally because there are about half a dozen possible answers to a search for Mandal; the AP term for a Tehsil is just one of them. Instead the enquirer is taken to Tehsil, where there is a hatnote linking to the town in Norway. So it seemed to make sense for a search to go to the disambiguation page; why is that wrong? Anyway it's been changed, and reverted, again now, so I've opened a discussion here if you wish to comment. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Changes to redirect don't have to go through WP:RM, but moving the disambiguation page to the base name is most easily accomplished that way. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)