User talk:ShelfSkewed/Archive 4

=2011=

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 18:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

re Hunger (band)
Thanks for adding the hatnote and other fixes to this article. It's one of the little delights of Wikipedia that you can write on the most obscure thing and finds it and makes it better.

Also: shelf skewed. So thats what it's called - who knew? Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You are entirely welcome. Happy editing!-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  06:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

link unpiping
Hi -- I know you are a seasoned editor, so I imagine you are familiar with one of the rules that has escaped my attention. I was wondering why you unpiped the link at The Kid. I would have thought piping was appropriate. Many thanks. You can reply here -- I will watch this page for a response (if you choose to give one). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * On dab pages, main-entry links are generally not piped (except to introduce formatting when called for). See the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages, particularly the sections MOS:DABENTRIES and WP:PIPING. Cheers! -- Shelf Skewed  Talk  21:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I knew that you likely knew more than I did on the subject. That can happen when the other editor has 33K more entries.  Many thanks.  It wasn't completely intuitive, but I get it.  I will have to spend the rest of the week studying all the exceptions!--Epeefleche (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry I missed the first occurence of that name in Fight Club (film). Thanks for the revert. Debresser (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize for any edit that is clearly an effort to make an improvement. I've been guilty of similar oversights, and worse, myself. Happy editing! -- Shelf Skewed  Talk  04:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to The Way I Am, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you! -- Ankit Maity 06:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And my advice to you is be more careful how you use that tool. Labelling non-vandalistic edits as vandalism is extremely rude.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  06:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Link to More Abuse
Hi, Please open this link and see the more abuse section Wikipedia talk:STiki.Ankit Maity 17:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Smiley
 Hello ShelfSkewed, Ankit Maity has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. I hope you forgot the dipute that happened with me and you are my friend again. Thanks.--Ankit Maity 12:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Query
Hello - I see you made a minor edit to the page for Jay Benedict - disambiguating the reference to the film Only Love. It now leads to a currently non-existent page. As a complete newbie to editing this seems a little odd. Is it sort of sitting there waiting for someone to come along and create a page for the film? Mickledore (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's one way to look at it: A red link is an invitation to someone, anyone, to create that article. My concern in this case was just taking care of incoming links to the disambiguation page. I chose to change this ambiguous link into a redlink because it is a subject that has a good chance of having an article someday, and it is already redlinked in other articles. (Another good thing red links do, besides spurring new-article creation, is create a behind-the-scenes web of connected articles; click on the redlink and then What links here to see the list of articles that include that link.) But redlinks are a matter of opinion; if you'd prefer not to have it linked, go ahead and remove the link. Cheers!-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  12:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No - I'm perfectly happy to leave it. I was just curious about the rationale for it.  Thank you for the very clear explanation! Mickledore (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you're a newish editor, and I was so eloquent on one side of the argument, I should probably play devil's advocate and give the other side, since I agree with some of it. Red links should be discouraged because: 1) There are a great many existing redlinks that link items that either are clearly not notable or are of debatable notability, and these are just distracting visual clutter with no redeeming value as far as helping users or further improving Wikipedia. I've unlinked many, many such myself. In fact, one might argue that the simple fact that a link is red means that the notability of the topic is doubtful, especially given the current number of existing articles. If it doesn't have an article yet, how important can it be? And speaking of Wikipedia's size... 2) We don't need redlinks to encourage article creation. We already have 3.5 million+ articles, and more are being created every day, and many (perhaps most) of these existing articles are in need of some form of improvement. We should be spending our time cleaning up what we have now, not going out of our way to encourage the creation yet more articles on topics of dubious merit. Have I convinced you to eliminate all redlinks? I hope not. A sensible middle course it what I would argue for: Judge each link on its own merits. Happy editing!-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  17:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts
New issue, that you may have thoughts on.

When there are lists of people, the guideline calls for immediate removal of entries that lack both a wp article and a ref.

That struck me as a bot-worthy task. I've started a conversation on that regard, with my first focus being "Lists of people of nation x". But dab pages that are strictly of lists of people could, it would seem to me, benefit from the same bot attention. Thoughts?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I know dab pages, but I don't know bot capabilities, so my opinion is only half-informed, but my feeling is that bot cleanup of these types of entries could be problematic. Disambiguation are different from list articles (and other articles) in their criteria for inclusion and in that references are not used on dab pages. An entry can be included on a dab page if it does not have an article as long as it is supported by another article, which should be included and linked in the description of the entry. I don't know if a bot could be programmed to sort out all the different situations that arise on dab pages regarding non-articled entries. For example, when the entry doesn't include a supporting a blue link in the description, but one could easily be found and added by a human editor. Or the description does include a blue link (or multiple blue links), but the article doesn't actually support the entry, in which case the entry should be removed. On the other hand, the bots that find and fix broken section links have been great for improving dab pages, so I'm not anti-bot. I just don't know if this is a task that is straightforward enough for a bot to handle.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  14:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Right -- interesting points. One I can respond to -- the bot would not be perfect, and not catch all shenanigans.  Such as one you point out.  But it would greatly reduce the inappropriate entries.  A "the perfect is the enemy of the good" approach.


 * I wonder whether dab pages solely of people come under the guidance of lists of people. If so, perhaps we have dueling criteria.


 * Another question -- as I've been doing dab work this week, I've come across some lists that are chrono order rather than alpha order. Have you seen those?  I've not the time to manually fix the, if they are long.


 * Also, as is to be expected, I found a fair number of "Mary, the mother of two beautiful blue-eyed boys" and the like. Without bots or a systemic fix requiring blue links (or more eyes) there is little that can be done to prevent those, I imagine.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Re: Chronological order. Exceptions, always exceptions. On very short dab pages, I try to find the best compromise among keeping the most in-demand entries (judging from incoming links and page traffic) near the top, alphabetical order, and grouping together like items. On longer dab pages with sections, I generally order entries alphabetically within sections, but the one exception I routinely make is for films, since chronological order is the way the film project editors seem to prefer it, and it's not worth tussling over. As long as the entries are in a logical order of some kind, one that a user can easily interpret, then the list serves its purpose.


 * Re: Lists of people. Limiting my comments strictly to dab-page issues, I have none with full-name or surname inclusions. Full names can obviously be ambiguous, and people are routinely referred to or remembered by their family names, so there is ambiguity there. My only issue is with lists of people by given name, which, as I said in my comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), has little or no value for disambiguation (except for noting people who are known only by their first name), and doesn't seem like a practical or encyclopedic enterprise. But you're certainly correct that in this area there is so much overlap between disambiguation and anthroponymy that the issues become confusing, and the given-name-list issue seems to be a hot potato that neither project really wants to deal with.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  16:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Is there a fast way to see which incoming links generate the most traffic? Or do you have to click history on each?  2)  The chrono order I am referring to is of people -- either in a given name, surname, or people list.  Some are (very carefully) ordered that way.  3) Some of course have no order whatsoever.  4) If a bot could do the work, having a bot put list sections in alpha order seems like a fine idea to me.  But less crucial than weeding out the non-true entries (which I must admit are far more prevalent on certain nation lists than they are on dab name pages). --Epeefleche (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * When I refer to the incoming links, I mean that I consider the intended targets of the ambiguous links to the dab page. To see the traffic for each article listed on a dab page, I go to this tool. Regarding human-name (full name) disambiguation pages, I haven't edited many recently, but I have seen both chronological and alphabetical ordering. I think chronological was the norm in the past, and alphabetical is more favored now. For surname-only lists, whether on dab pages or dedicated surname pages, I think alphabetical order is standard. For given name lists, I've seen pages where sections on historical figures (monarchs or popes, say) are ordered chronologically, but more recent individuals are ordered alphabetically.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  18:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

H. W. Fowler
Please do not cite Fowler for what he does not say: This is Fowler's class E ("Hyphens", p. 245): [Hyphens] attach closely to an active or passive participle an adverb or preposition preceding or following it that would not require hyphening to the parent verb (you put up, not put-up, a job, but the result is a put-up job). Fowler's proposed rule is to hyphenate if and only if there is a single accent on the first syllable; he observes that this is not usage, but that usage is so variable as to be better named caprice. Neither, therefore, will support "never hyphenate." The endnote to the 1998 edition suggests that matters have worsened, if possible, since 1926. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you quoted the material you did, since it has nothing to do with the particular issue that I weighed in on, which was adverb-adjective combinations before a noun. Anent hyphens in general Fowler says (or said, in the 1965 2nd edition I have): "[T]he hyphen is not an ornament but an aid to being understood, and should be employed only when it is needed for that purpose." On composite adjectives: "When the first word of the compound is an adverb no hyphen is ordinarily needed, though one may often be found there. It is the business of an adverb to qualify the word next to it; there should be no risk of misunderstanding....But this will have to be done when when the adverb might be mistaken for an adjective." This is pretty much what I said he said.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  04:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The second edition was drastically re-edited by Sir Ernest Gowers; it should not be referred to as Fowler - especially for this section, which Gowers rewrote from scratch. Thank you for quoting the last sentence; however, Gowers' full wording involves any chance of ambiguity, which is broader than your phrasing - and much broader than Chris the speller's unfortunate practice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Greetings and thanks
I am making my 99,999th edit to thank you for offering support on the topic of hyphenation (though I noticed your anti-editcountitis userbox). You are rapidly approaching the 6-digit count yourself. I agree that it's not an indication of quality, but I'm confident that your edits have that as well. I'll probably bump into you somewhere on WP. Happy editing! Chris the speller  yack  16:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome, and congrats on your 100K. Here's hoping you make many more... -- Shelf Skewed  Talk  04:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only ‘’’5 minutes’’’ cooldenny (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Locomotive name dabs
Hi, re - in locomotive lists the links from names are not supposed to link to an article on the individual locomotive, but to whoever/whatever the loco is named after. I have. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up--I'll keep that in mind. Regards, -- Shelf Skewed  Talk  18:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Link fixes
Your corrections have been duly noted&mdash;I was unaware of the guideline regarding disambig pages. Thanks. --Imperialles (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Disambig pages are somewhat unusual compared with other pages, and most editors don't know all the ins and outs. Happy editing!-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  18:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

query
Hi ... I see that you trimmed away some (IMHO) notable brief descriptive material, here. Was wondering why -- I found its existence helpful, and thought it well within the guidelines. You can respond here. Best. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I like to keep descriptions as brief as possible--all that's necessary is to enable a user to differentiate the topic being sought. I could have trimmed more, and almost did.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  04:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Brevity is great. Up to a point.  I personally thought the descriptions were brief, sentence fragments, and the material deleted helpful to me (and others) as readers, and well within the guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Helpful in what way? If you're looking for Ted Williams the baseball player nicknamed The Kid, is the Hall of Fame info at all necessary to identify that person? Ditto the particular teams for the footballers. As long as there's enough info to find the person you're looking for, any more is just clutter.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  04:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Helpful in determining if a) it is the person I am thinking of (we have multiple baseball players w/the same name ... as in Ryan Braun, etc., and in fact there have even been two other professional baseball players in the US named Ted or Teddy Williams), b) in knowing the level of notability, and c) in knowing more specific info as to the individual -- all, of course, in brief sentence-fragment format. The fact that most of the info there was added by different editors, or so I would guess, suggests to me that other editors agree with me who have edited that page.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are injecting more uncertainty into the situation than would ever actually be the case. Let us say a user enters "The Kid" into the search box expecting to end up at the Ted Williams article (not entirely reasonable, perhaps, but only a few degrees less reasonable than, say, entering "Mercury" and expecting to end up at the article for the automobile) and ends up instead at the disambiguation page. Now, having found on that page the list of people known by that nickname, is this user really likely to be at all confused about whether or not the "Ted Williams, Major League Baseball player" listed is actually the Ted Williams being sought? I am skeptical that any more information is necessary for this identification. But if you think that that extra information is genuinely useful, go ahead and add it back. I won't fight about it.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  05:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see how you are looking at it. I think there are multiple reasons people might show up at the disambig page.  The one you mention is certainly a key one, but not I think the only one.  If the reason readers might end up there were only that one, I would be in agreement with you.  I think that there are others, though, such as -- "I wonder who else (other than person x, who is called the Kid), had that same moniker".  In that event (just one example), I think the detail helpful.  Does that make any sense?  And I appreciate your offer to allow me to add it back if I think it genuinely useful.  Tx again.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The type of user I described is exactly the kind of user a dab page is supposed to function as a navigation page for: Someone who knows what s/he is looking for and needs to be pointed to the correctly titled article as quickly and efficiently as possible. Dab pages are not intended to accomodate open-ended or exploratory searches--that's what the various search functions are for--and in any case the extra information would be entirely extraneous for such a searcher since that user is not seeking any specific person but a general grouping of people; additional info about the individual members of the group is available in their articles.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  05:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Milestone
Buster Seven   Talk  13:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC) ________________________________________________________________

Renaming athletics
Hi Shelf, I read the pages you suggested, but did not raise a discussion about changing the page names. There are a lot of people who have been only slightly more than idle in discussing the "Athletics" page names and contents for years-- so I boldly tried to change the names again. The "move" function did not change that name as I thought it would, and now I have a little mess. Would you mind reading my talk page, and perhaps helping me out of the mess ? I have read the page on disambiguation, and your response here (just above) regarding dab pages. I agree, and believe a Google search should not land on a disambiguation page, as it does with "Athletics." TommyKirchhoff (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Copied and replied to at User talk:TommyKirchhoff.

Fly-by-night
If you're going to remove the main definition of the term "fly-by-night" because it doesn't fit the tone of a disambiguation page, then at the very least you could move the definition to a separate page and point to it. Having a disambiguation page that doesn't include the most common meaning of the term (you know, the one that is referred to 99% of the time the phrase is used) is quite an oversight. I'd consider your change more harmful than good as you're sacrificing vital information for style.--Subversive Sound (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Y Done -- Shelf Skewed  Talk  17:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for making that change. And I did read the disamb style guide before editing the page. The reason I decided to add the info to the top of the page was because it seemed like an appropriate main topic (since all of the movies, albums, etc. are all basically referencing that meaning), and also the topic is not likely to grow beyond a stub on its own page. But either way is good. I just wanted to make sure that someone who looks up "fly-by-night" can see the main definition, which also provides some context for the other usages listed.--Subversive Sound (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you, ShelfSkewed, for clarifying about no need for the hatnote at The Kid: What Happened After My Boyfriend and I Decided to Go Get Pregnant and at The Kid (musical). Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Fate
That's fine; thanks for explaining. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. And your edit did alert me to the fact that the redlink should be removed as there was no longer a matching redlink in the target.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  03:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate
your straightening up the shelves on my recent record articles. I still have not quite got the hang of them. But with practice, practice, practice and some good direction, (a tip of the hat) I might get better. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. That's what Wikipedia is all about: You do something, someone else adds a bit or fixes a bit, and so on. Happy editing!-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  20:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

REVERT!!!
Just saying!

History of astrology - for your attention possibly
As someone who has contributed content in the past - you may be interested in noticing this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_astrology#Deletion_of_unreferenced_content Cheers, Zac  Δ talk   00:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Table for Without You
Spidey 104  18:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the heads up on the discussion you started. I don't think tables are necessary for all disambiguation pages, but Without You was excessively long and I thought it really needed it.
 * Sorry about changing the links to the specific songs. I didn't realize I violated a rule when I reduced those down in size. Thanks for fixing them.
 * Thank you for getting the artists to sort by their last name. I didn't know how to do that.

Thank you - re: Serer people article
Thank you for disambiguating Footballer to Association football in Serer people article. Tamsier (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Heartbreaker (Eclipse Hunter single), One (Eclipse Hunter album)
I see you really think of yourself as a very wise and confident moderator who can simply delete pages without consent with the authors! And even more, you or someone else has deleted the main artist page! Look, I don't care who you are in real life, but I spent a lot of time filling out those pages and making them look cute, and you, sir, haven't even contacted me to back them up! What kind of a dork are you then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by A3000 (talk • contribs)
 * I am not a moderator, just an editor like yourself, and I tagged those articles for deletion according to accepted Wikipedia guidelines. Eclipse Hunter's article was deleted (for the second time) nearly a year ago, and you made no effort in that time to reestablish the article with sources supporting that group's notability. And Wikipedia guidelines quite sensibly maintain that if a performer is not notable enough to have an article, then that performer's albums and singles are also insufficiently notable. If you would like to try to reintroduce these articles, beginning with the performer's article, you can contact an administrator who will provide copies of deleted articles, and then improve the articles by adding sources that establish notability. And if you need time to find those sources, you can work on the articles in your user sandbox (follow the link on that page after "find your user sandbox")--where they will not be subject to article standards for deletion--before putting them into article space. And as to what kind of dork I am, I thought my user page made that clear: I'm a book dork. Cheers!-- Shelf Skewed   Talk  17:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip. Taking my words back :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A3000 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. Your frustration was understandable, and I've been called much worse names. If you need any other help, don't hesitate to ask. -- Shelf Skewed  Talk  15:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Weight disambiguation page
I would like to point out to you that disambiguation pages are not articles; they are navigation pages for directing users to articles. I took your point regarding Fly by night, because there was no existing article, and split the material off to a separate page (although why you didn't just create an article in the first place, I don't know). But the extended definition you added to Weight (disambiguation) is unnecessary because the term itself links to the article on the subject. All that is required is a brief description to identify the topic--the content is already in the target article. Before you edit more disambiguation pages, may I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the Manual of Style of for disambiguation pages. Regards, -- Shelf Skewed  Talk  17:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have read the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages, and I have to respectfully disagree with your interpretation. First off, I didn't turn the weight disamb. page into an article. I added 2 sentences to the intro to broaden the definition, and the reason I did that was because I was trying to find the official definition of a "fly weight"&mdash;the mechanical concept/device&mdash;on the web and couldn't find one. The first Google result was the Wikipedia disamb. page for flyweight. Now, Wikipedia is generally a good source of information for these types of inquiries, but the flyweight disamb. page didn't contain any mention of the usage/definition I was concerned with.
 * Through various online articles that mention fly weights in passing, I was able to deduce that they're a type of weight used in flywheels and similar devices. So my immediate instinct was to look for a definition in the weight (disambiguation) page. However, here there was no mention of any type of mechanical weights or even the fairly common general definition of "weight"--any type of device whose main purpose/usage is directly related to its heaviness/mass. The closest definition listed was weight-lifting equipment, which is only a small subclass of this category of devices.
 * I felt that these were major oversights in both the "weight" and "flyweight" disamb. pages, and I wanted to make sure that others would have an easier time finding these definitions in the two most obvious places one would look for it. I also felt that the weight disamb. page was misleading&mdash;weights aren't just used for weight-lifting; weights are used as counterweights, as flyweights, as paperweights, or any other function where an object's mass plays the primary purpose. Therefore, I made my edit to correct these problems.
 * I'd also point out that looking at flyweight (disambiguation)'s revision history, it appears that "fly weight", the mechanical device, had previously been listed before my edit. However, someone came along and decided that it broke their narrow interpretation of the Manual of Style, and, going against common sense and the best interest of Wikipedia users (i.e. usability), they removed it. Never mind the fact that at the bottom of the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages it specifically mentions that one shouldn't blindly follow the guidelines set forth at the cost of usability.
 * Lastly, the expanded definition I added has nothing at all to do with the weight article that you mentioned (which is about "weight", the property, rather than "weights", the devices/objects). That's what the first sentence in the intro talks about, so that's the sentence that you should have deleted.
 * I know that if I put my edit back, you or someone like you will probably just come along and remove it again, but I stand by my edit. I feel that it perfectly follows the spirit of the style guide and makes the disambiguation page more helpful.--Subversive Sound (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I still think that the definitional material about weight referring to any object whose function relates primarily to its heaviness is just that: A simple dictionary definition handled by the Wiktionary link. Looking at the flyweight issue specifically, I agree that the lack of an article on the topic of mechanical flyweights is a serious omission. But here's the thing: The way to remedy that situation is to create the article, or introduce the material into an existing relevant article, not place the material on a disambiguation page. I'll repeat what I said before: Disambiguation pages are not articles; they are navigation pages for directing users to articles. A disambiguation page is not the place to introduce material that does not appear in a regular article; adding to a dab page is not an acceptable substitute for article creation or improvement. And, yes, you will encounter resistance to expanding the function of dab pages, because the consensus has always been that article material belongs in articles, and burdening dab pages with definitional and article material compromises their efficacy as navigational aids.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  15:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Your edits
On both I Need You (album) and I Need You (LeAnn Rimes song) were unnecessary removals, especially on the I Need You album as that has to do with Rimes' album and not the song so to put the disambiguation and the best example to show is Speak Now there's the album by Taylor Swift then the song by her. And I suggest not removing the one on Speak Now as a consensus was made on the talk page. So please stop removing things that shouldn't be removed. Thank you! JamesAlan1986 *talk 19:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The hatnote on Speak Now is necessary because the title of the article not disambiguated--that is, there is no clarifier in parentheses, so the article could refer to either the album or the song. You will notice that the article Speak Now (song) does not have a hatnote, because that title could not be used for the album article, and there are (at the moment) no other songs with that title. In the cases of I Need You (album) and I Need You (LeAnn Rimes song), those articles do not need disambiguation hatnotes because neither title could belong to any other article: There is no other album to point to with that title, and the song article title is fully disambiguated--it refers to the LeAnn Rimes song and nothing else. Both hatnotes are unnecessary and should be removed. Please consult the guideline I referred to in my edit summary, WP:NAMB. -- Shelf Skewed  Talk  21:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I really don't see that and obviously as I've always said before about wikipedia people need to pick and chose their battles cause there's similarities because I Need You (album) is exactly like Speak Now. There's the album by Rimes and the song by Rimes, just like there's the album by Swift and the song by Swift, no difference. So to say it breaks that is wrong cause they are exactly the same. And as for I Need You (LeAnn Rimes song) not needing one check I Need You and you will notice that there are several song articles listed there along with the same name so a disambiguation hatnotes is actually needed on both as well as all songs under that title. JamesAlan1986 *talk 21:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Another great example Sparks Fly (album) and Sparks Fly (song) there's one there due to differences by song and album. JamesAlan1986 *talk 22:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I Need You (LeAnn Rimes song) should be I Need You (song) as it was the first one to come out and the rest followed later. Why it doesn't I don't know.JamesAlan1986 *talk 22:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me try one more time: The article title Speak Now could refer to either the album or the song, so that article has a hatnote; the article title Speak Now (song) can refer only to the song, but not the album, so the article does not have a hatnote. Get it? In the case of the LeAnn Rimes articles, the article titles I Need You (album) and I Need You (LeAnn Rimes song) can refer only to the particular subjects of the articles; the article I Need You (album) is about the album, and the article I Need You (LeAnn Rimes song) is about the LeAnn Rimes song, and neither article title could refer to any other existing Wikipedia topic. None of those other songs could have an article titled I Need You (LeAnn Rimes song) now could they? So why would we need to point to them from the article I Need You (LeAnn Rimes song)? Your Sparks Fly example also doesn't fly--neither of those articles needs a hatnote, either. Again, please, please consult the guideline I referred to in my edit summary, WP:NAMB.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  22:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but my stand is this: Do it for all or do it for none. You can't just pick and chose on Wikipedia. That's how edit wars start because of all that picking and choosing of the rules. It really needs to stop cause it's ridiculous. JamesAlan1986</b> *<sup style="font-family:Arial; color:darkred;">talk 22:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And you wanna good point look at the pages title I Need You (album) so it doesn't specify anything other then that. Where does it say LeAnn Rimes in the title? and what happens if someone wanted the song and accidently picked the album? We should redirect for it and that's what the dang disambiguation is for. Just like the song should have them for accidents. More convinent and smart and as I said pick and chose either all of them do it or none. I really despise this okay for one but not another crap on here. <b style="font-family:Arial; color:red;">JamesAlan1986</b> *<sup style="font-family:Arial; color:darkred;">talk  22:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please. I'm not "picking and choosing" randomly or capriciously. Hatnotes are required or not, depending on the circumstances, and there are obvious differences in the cases you cite, and I've pointed them out to you repeatedly. You are the one choosing to ignore or defy established guidelines, not me. If you don't like the current guideline WP:NAMB, then start a discussion to get it changed. But you are the one who should be careful about starting an edit war over a guideline you happen not to like.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  22:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

<blockquote style="margin-bottom: 0pt; background-color: white; color: black; border:1px solid black; padding: 1em;"> Tree (set theory)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 * For other uses, see Tree (disambiguation).

In set theory, a tree is a partially ordered set (poset) in which there is a single unique minimal element (called theroot) and in which the set of elements less than a given element is well ordered...

Here, the hatnote is inappropriate because a reader who is following links within Wikipedia or using Wikipedia's own search engine would not have ended up at tree (set theory) if one were looking for other types of trees, since tree does not redirect there.

However, a hatnote may still be appropriate when even a more specific name is still ambiguous. For example, Matt Smith (comics) might still be confused for the comics illustrator Matt Smith (illustrator).

A hatnote may also be appropriate in an unambiguously named article when an ambiguous term redirects to it, as explained in the "Proper uses" section above.

Look at their example then look at what your saying and see how you are wrong. No where does it say that what I have posted is wrong. <b style="font-family:Arial; color:red;">JamesAlan1986</b> *<sup style="font-family:Arial; color:darkred;">talk 22:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is the example of what not to do: "Here, the hatnote is inappropriate...."-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  22:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to point this out: I Need You (LeAnn Rimes album). Click that where does it go? <b style="font-family:Arial; color:red;">JamesAlan1986</b> *<sup style="font-family:Arial; color:darkred;">talk 22:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"Here, the hatnote is inappropriate because a reader who is following links within Wikipedia or using Wikipedia's own search engine would not have ended up at tree (set theory) if one were looking for other types of trees, since tree does not redirect there." This is a lie cause I've actually done that before by mistake which people do clicking on the wrong thing when they hit the other. Been there done that several times and to say they wouldn't is WRONG! LOL! <b style="font-family:Arial; color:red;">JamesAlan1986</b> *<sup style="font-family:Arial; color:darkred;">talk 22:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If I'm quoting this right. A hatnote may also be appropriate in an unambiguously named article when an ambiguous term redirects to it, as explained in the "Proper uses"

So since I Need You (LeAnn Rimes album) redirects to that page to post what I have posted isn't wrong. And I also wanna add that I don't start discussions on here to change things as no one listens it's all about rules instead of respecting peoples opinion and I've been bashed enough on here so screw doing that. <b style="font-family:Arial; color:red;">JamesAlan1986</b> *<sup style="font-family:Arial; color:darkred;">talk 22:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've tried repeatedly to explain this rather simple and sensible guideline, and clearly you just don't get it. But I'll have one more go: If an article (or a redirect to that article) could be used as the title for another article, then the ambiguously titled article should have a hatnote. If not, then not. That's as simply as I can put it. Your interpretation of the guideline is just wrong, and if we used hatnotes to accommodate every possible mistake a user could make, we would end up with a hatnote on every article saying "Wikipedia has other articles." And it's not that your opinion doesn't matter, but in order to function Wikipedia has to reconcile the opinions of a great many people. So we have guidelines arrived at by consensus. If you don't like the current consensus, then you can work to try to change it. But you shouldn't simply ignore it or flout it just because you don't like it.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  03:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue is dead so let it go and just so you know this is usually how it ends up. I give up every time and bow to what everyone else thinks and every time I make an opinion it doesn't matter so why say a damn thing or do anything on here? It makes no difference. Everything is rules or guidelines this instead of common sense. I've seen it on here to much and it's ridiculous. There are several things that are wrong on here or pick and chose and it's dumb! I've seen pages on here that go by stupid stuff like common name instead of proper name and when you point out how everything has a common name it doesn't matter cause it's got nothing to do with the subject at hand or whatever their stupid reasonings are and this is just the same thing. And why is it like that cause of "rules" and guidelines". It's stupid. It's no wonder schools don't allow Wikipedia for references. So just let it go you've won already I'm tired of trying to do the right thing and use common sense and point out common sense stuff when no one listens. <b style="font-family:Arial; color:red;">JamesAlan1986</b> *<sup style="font-family:Arial; color:darkred;">talk 16:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

From now I'm just gonna sit by and let crap happen and when everything gets vandalized or changed I ain't doing nothing about it cause what's the point? I'm just gonna let things go by and not change what people do cause there's no point. I'm tired of being bashed for my opinions cause I don't think we should set guidelines that contradict themselves and I'm tired of bowing to other people who wanna do that. <b style="font-family:Arial; color:red;">JamesAlan1986</b> *<sup style="font-family:Arial; color:darkred;">talk 16:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Playmen
Thanks for your message at User talk:JamesBWatson. I've replied there. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Second order system listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Second order system. Since you had some involvement with the Second order system redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

A superior solution
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shape_%28disambiguation%29&curid=2100620&diff=459581332&oldid=459494212

Thanks for improving that - I should have done it that way myself, but was in the middle of a discussion about SHAPE (molecular biology) itself and it didn't occur to me... -- stillnotelf   is invisible  15:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. Happy editing!-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  16:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

WP Disambiguation in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Disambiguation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The Breeze (Frome & West Wiltshire)
I am terribly sorry that the above name does not have More or More Radio in its title name, even if it has a new name. You should only put in a name thats similar like More Radio and More FM. In articles like "More - may refer to" in theory should start with "unsigned comment added by Steveojavano (talk • contribs) Steveojavano 18:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Celador Radio
I like to further comment that The Breeze (Frome & West Wiltshire) is now under a new ownership "Celador" see also: The Breeze (radio network), has different DJs with 'local' progamming now from completely different studios Bristol in the south west, UK (includes the breakfast show and the drive home show) and and 'networked shows are from Southampton in Hampshire located in the South, UK, so therefore it is a completely new station on the same frequency, but is not the same station, while More Radio stations in Swindon, west Wiltshire and Bath used to be owned by One Gold Radio Ltd and have nothing to do with one another. You could try to rephrase it in another way perhaps. You also forgot to put in the country the "United Kingdom" in the about sources within the artices as not all New Zealanders know that Swindon is in the United Kingdom. Thank you.Steveojavano 19:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveojavano (talk • contribs) Steveojavano 19:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Steveojavano 20:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Steveojavano 21:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Disambiguation pages and hatnotes are intended to help people who know what they are looking for find the correct article. Imagine a user who knows that there is or was a Frome & West Wiltshire FM station known as "More", and that user finds his way to either More Radio or More FM. The hatnotes as you have them offer that person no help at all, even though the article being sought does exist. What is the purpose in frustrating that person? The hatnote should mention all the possibilities that the ambiguous title might refer to (or, if there are many possible topics, should point to the dab page). As for mentioning that the Swindon and/or Wiltshire stations are in the UK, it does no harm if you insist on it. But it really doesn't matter what New Zealanders may or may not know; what matters is what someone actually looking for those stations knows. A user looking for a radio station in Swindon already knows it's in the UK. But as I said that's a trivial point. The important point is that the hatnotes in their current form offer no help to people looking for that station in Frome & West Wiltshire. And I have to ask again: Why do want to keep that information from them?-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  05:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello again
I really hope you do forgive me and what I have done has not offend you in any way. I like to tell you a bit about myself I live in a small market town in Devizes, Wiltshire in the UK. I am 44 years old and took an interest in radio stations (sounds sad I know), so I know somethings about radio but not everything I have to say. But I do have other things that interest me like cars (especially old cars). I sometimes watch Top Gear on BBC Two which is different to the one in the US. I also love computer games both on Xbox 360 and Playstion 3 like Call of Duty, Need for Speed and Tiger Woods PGA Golf, to name but a few. I am generally a very nice person, but at the same time 'to the point' kind of person and sometimes I like to be fair. I understand that you are American from Missouri. I hope I spelt that correctly. It has been nice talking to you. I been on Wikipedia only for a few months and I am still not sure to upload images properly. I still trying to understand what a "Non-free Rationale" is, please forgive me. For a person that knows about Wikipedia more than I do whose been on it for five years, I would like some help please, if you don't mind. Thank you.Steveojavano 22:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The Breeze (Frome & West Wiltshire) in More Radio section
I know one article name like More Radio (Swindon) does not have to have disambigs, but that not what I am getting at. I am simply trying to explain that More Radio and The Breeze are two totally different stations. The Breeze Network is a group of Breeze stations that includes: The Breeze (Frome & West Wiltshire), The Breeze (Bridgwater and West Somerset), The Breeze (Bristol & Bath) and The Breeze (South Coast). These operate as one station, with simultaneous programmes, except for breakfast and drive home shows which separates The Breeze (South Coast) from The Breeze (South West) and all operated under Celador Radio. Look up the website http://www.thebreeze.com More Radio on the other hand only now serves in Swindon (a stand alone station) and not West Wiltshire nor Frome and not even Bath for that matter. So why do you think I am trying to hide something from someone? I am not trying to hide anything. But it does not have to be there A hatnote should only be included when two (or more than two articles are very similar or have a similar name . Please try to understand my point of view. But to settle this argument peacefully, I added two former More Radio stations now called The Breeze in the More Radio article, but not the More FM article, because in New Zealand they already have a radio station with the same name, see: The Breeze (New Zealand), it might get a bit confusing. It usually does help to add another location. Okay, so there might only be one Swindon on the entire planet, but how many Westburys or Bristols or Christchurch's do you know of?. I know there are several of them, so it does help to add a region, a state or even a country and therefore helps the 'user' more comfortably. All I ask is, please try to be happy with it. It wouldn't hurt, not really. I am only trying to be helpful and not trying to hide from something which isn't really necessary.Steveojavano 00:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are too focused on the actual titles of the articles. Whatever the article title, if the Frome & West Wiltshire station was once known as "More", then someone might be looking for it under that name. We should be helping them to find it, not hindering them. If, on the other hand, that station was never known as "More", then the section of the article The Breeze (Frome & West Wiltshire) that seems to suggest otherwise should be revised.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  05:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)