Jump to content

User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:JHunterJ

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JHunterJ (talk | contribs) at 16:26, 20 October 2020 (→Octavius (disambiguation): r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for talking to, with or about me - JHunterJ
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page. The easiest way to do this is by clicking the [new section] on the navigation bar above.
Please respect

Talk page guidelines & Wikiquette

I will reply here unless you ask me to reply somewhere else.

Question

Did you put your comment [1] on the wrong thread at Talk:Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833)? WCMemail 16:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Armorer

I saw that you moved The Armorer to its new title from The Armorer (Star Wars). Makes sense, thanks for doing so. Not sure if you do GA reviews or not, but FYI, that article (as well as a handful of other Mandalorian character articles, is currently nominated for good article at WP:GAN, if you're interested in giving it a review... — Hunter Kahn 18:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Would it be inappropriate, in your view, to note in the "China Virus" redirect that epidemiologists in the CDC and WHO [2][3] have stated that SARS-CoV-2 should not be referred to as "China virus," and that scientists don't use this term either [4]? -Darouet (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In a disambiguation page? Yes, it would be inappropriate. In an article? Totally appropriate, and could be then added as an entry to the disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or the disambiguation page could be repurposed as an article on the phrase, its usage and recommended non-usage. I put a comment in the dab to that effect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Panic Room

Hello, regarding your edit here, you added &nbsp; to numbers that already had the {{nowrap}} template. That seems redundant. What do you think? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those are redundant; I try to catch them, but missed. Note that not all of the nbsps were redundant. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had just wanted to confirm with you if I should be using one approach or the other or if either were fine. Thanks for addressing additional items. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guti RM

Hi there - there was no consensus for this close. The nominator wanted a move, one other editor (me) opposed it. Please revert and re-list. GiantSnowman 18:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your oppose gave no supporting policy, guideline, or evidence, while the nominator did, and pageviews are a primary topic criterion, as noted in the close. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go Transit

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Canadian stations)#Go station naming regarding station naming conventions for Go Transit. Cards84664 00:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Order of short description and whatnot

I noticed that your edit at Bobby Mitchell moved the hatnote first, but it's contrary to MOS:ORDER saying the short description should be on top. Is there a particular reason? Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it seems WP:AWB has not caught up with short description order. I'll post to its talkpage, and check that part of any further edits I make with it. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it'll be fixed in the next release, so I just need to watch for it until then. Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#MOS:ORDER. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor adjustment to AWB script?

Thanks for your edit to clean up references at Tyler, Texas. If you are using a custom script to replace Special:BookSources links, can you please adjust it to remove the extraneous <bdi>...</bdi> tags, like this? If you are unable to do that, no big deal. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! But it would be difficult to determine which bdi tags are needed and which aren't. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noongar RM

Hi! Would you mind reconsidering the close of the RM at Talk:Noongar (disambiguation)? I would generally expect an RM with a single "oppose" to get relisted in the first instance, and especially wouldn't expect it to be closed straight away if this oppose is apparently based at least in part on a misunderstanding of the scope and purpose of one the articles concerned. – Uanfala (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Your latest unbelievably stupid edit

..which of course I have reverted. Your editing is not of a sufficiently high standard for you to go messing about with stuff that's just about to go on the main page in this way. Often your damaging edits won't be spotted in time. Didn't you even look at the picture???? You can't, surely, think WP:THE has any bearing here, other than the article not using "the" in the title? It is either "Fulham Pottery" or "The Fulham Pottery"; one is right and the other wrong, and you didn't bother to find out which. I'll have to keep an eye on your edits if you are doing a lot of main page goalmouth hanging. Or are you just stalking me now? Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Bottle Kiln at Fulham Pottery (1079795)" [5]
"Green, Chris M., John Dwight's Fulham Pottery: Excavations 1971–79"
Didn't you even look at the sources???? You can't, surely, think you WP:OWN the article. I'll have to keep an eye on your edits if your editing doesn't get up to a high enough standard. Or are you just stalking me now?
I've been main-page watching for a long time. Don't flatter yourself. And stop being a dick. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit to Jacques Blamont

Just wanted to let you know that you accidentally removed the "see also" section entirely in this edit, presumably since you had just edited it and AWB apparently didn't know how to react to it. It's been fixed now. Ionmars10 (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it intentionally because it was empty after removing all of the links that were already in the body text. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. Just looked like a mistake at first, cause I wasn't sure what you meant by "clean up." Thanks. Ionmars10 (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Perfect" RM

Talk:Perfect#Requested_move_14_April_2020

There was clearly no concensus for this move - with 2 supports and 2 opposes. Your rationale for the close reads more like a WP:SUPERVOTE. Reopen, and relist for more input. -- Netoholic @ 03:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Perfect. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Netoholic @ 18:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Talk:Madman#Requested_move_14_April_2020

Likewise, this one has 2 opposes and only 1 support. Again, your rationale is a SUPERVOTE because it introduces a new argument to the discussion not raised by anyone else. -- Netoholic @ 03:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Madman. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Netoholic @ 18:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Talk:John_Conway_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_14_April_2020

3 oppose and only 2 support. This is very concerning. -- Netoholic @ 03:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTVOTE (and if trying to lobby for a simple vote, remember to count the OP in with the supports). And please re-read WP:SUPERVOTE, which these were not. The supports had the backing of policy and guidelines, as mentioned in the closes. Investigating the claims made and describing how reality bore them out is not introducing new arguments. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a Move review of John Conway (disambiguation). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Netoholic @ 18:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Callaghan MacCarty, 3rd Earl of Clancarty

Dear JHunterJ: Thank you very much for your corrections on the article Callaghan MacCarty, 3rd Earl of Clancarty. I wonder whether you know that user CaptainEek submitted this article for DYK and whether your corrections are done in this context. I have written much of the content. I am still a novice and am grateful to CaptainEek for his initiative. I would not have thought of this possibility. Please allow me to chat with you about some details. I always learn something at such occasions. The year of birth is simply my guess and very poorly constrained. That is why I did not want to show it on the lede. I gave only the year of death (1676) and left the date (22 November) for the corresponding section in the body. MOS:LEADBIO says one can do so. In the lede I said "younger" son because an aristocratic family would never destine the eldest son to a religious career. I always say "the subject of this article" in the list of siblings, but the more I think about it, the more I see your point. I think I will remove this phrase from all the article where I have added such lists. Thanks you very much again for your efforts. Johannes Schade (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did come across the article because it showed up in the DYK queue. I see your point about the birth year; I've made a tweak to the lede. I took out the "younger" because it's impossible to be born an older son. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot!Johannes Schade (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hesitation has been accepted

Hesitation, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

JHunterJ (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dis sayin ...

Talk:Alabama#You're_welcome --Brogo13 (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[Exactly.] --Brogo13 (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:NUMERAL

Please stop removing &nbsp;s from numbers, like in 6&nbsp;million. This is contrary to guidelines at MOS:NUMERAL, and it especially shouldn't be done with automated tools like AWB. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a diff? I've been adding nbsps to numbers with millions using AWB. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, I'm an idiot who can't read diffs correctly apparently. Never mind, sorry –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Chris Seaver" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Chris Seaver. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 11#Chris Seaver until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Robert Peters (Playwright)"

I honestly think his title after his name should be (Poet and Literary Critic) because he is notably known for this description as a writer whereas his notability as a playwright is less notable. I tried to amend this but I found it to be very difficult to make this change. I understand the (disambugity) distinction but the means to get to right course of action to revised his title way too convuluted for me and I hope you set this revision right. thank you for all your illustrious effort with wikipedia Pjt48 (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections (or any real input). Suggest using Talk:Robert Peters (playwright) with a new section. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silly edit war

Me to Francis Schonken at their talk page

Please read WP:MOSDAB before calling things you don't understand "nonsense".[6] -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Their continuation here after reverting that

Please stop your silly edit war at Triple Concerto No. 2. Dab pages need to be helpful, and you've made that one considerably less helpful, advocating rules you seemingly don't even begin to understand. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop calling the kettle black. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent University of Chicago page edit

Hello there! I think you made a mistake in your most recent edit on the University of Chicago Wikipedia page; you de-capitalized the word “college”, however those instances were referring to “the College” at the university, which is different than the word “college”. See https://college.uchicago.edu/home for your reference. Please fix this when you have a moment. Thanks! —- Abstrex

Is there a secondary reference for it? Regardless, no objection to a revert if you want to undo that part of the edit. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Self-portrait (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Self-Portrait (Rembrandt, London) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carceri Nuove

Hallo

can you please move the article back to its original name? Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PRECISION -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this is not the only notable building with this name in Italy, and this is the reason why I added the name of the city. So, please put the original name of the article, thanks. Alex2006 (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is the ambiguous topic covered in English Wikipedia? I see the Italian Wikipedia has an ambiguous topic, but it has no interwiki link to English, so there's not yet any need to disambiguate it. When there is, we can. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, when someone will write an article about the jail in Turin, you are reserved to move it back! ;-) Alex2006 (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox novella

Template:Infobox novella has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox book. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence Spacing

Hi, JHunterJ

the first time I reverted you for this I did make an effort to restore what I thought were the more useful parts of your edit. I didn't really see why I should continue to do that if you were not going to stop making the edits I objected to. I really don't understand why you are so determined to remove sentence double spacing. It is unnecessary to remove it and harmless to leave it be. SpinningSpark 12:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see why you shouldn't revert improvements to the encyclopedia in edits just because you object to a different part of the edit? I can't explain that misunderstanding; this is a collaborative effort, and it should go without saying that undoing improvements is bad.
Your rationale for keeping unnecessary double spacing was WP:STYLEVAR. OK, that's a stretch, but OK. But "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article." (WP:MOS). So if we're going with STYLEVAR for two spaces or one, then yes, it should be consistent, and so it's unnecessary for you to revert that improvement and harmless to leave it be. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi JHunterJ, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"moved without discussion"

I get that you're trying to close a tricky discussion, but I would appreciate it if you had dug into the history a little more before saying what you did here. I moved the page because, after the Indian government turned the erstwhile state into a union territory, the title Jammu and Kashmir was becoming a hopeless amalgam of material about two distinct entities. I moved it to allow the titles to remain separate. There was also substantive discussion on the talk page, and I stated explicitly that the eventual title and the status of the redirect needed discussion. Your closure statement, as it stands, comes close to accusing me of tool misuse, without giving me a chance to respond. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted that clarification. Let me know if that works. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh what a mess this is going to become! JHunterJ, it's a bit of stretch to override all past discussions with a simple appeal to WP:PRECISION (as though none of the participants there knew of the basics of article naming). I'm not going to be challenging your close (I don't have the patience for that), so don't feel the need to reply, but you should be aware that if you make a very bold close to an under-attended little RfD discussion on a topic that has been extensively debated elsewhere, you're not making things better at all. – Uanfala (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was absolutely nothing bold about that close. If there's a primary topic, that article needs to be moved to the base name. If there's not, it needs to be a disambiguation page. RfD was not the place for that discussion; which is why there was no prejudice against actually moving the appropriate article to the base name if that's what needs to happen. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't see why it's a bold action to wade into a complex matter and shut off discussion with a supervote brandishing a rule that's nothing but a technicality, then I can't help you. – Uanfala (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Under-attended little RfD. Shut off discussion. Supervote. Brandishing a rule. Nothing but a technicality. No, you cannot help me until you understand those terms. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marginally better, I suppose, but I think you're still kind of missing the bigger picture here; the actions were made to prevent disruption, and to allow the necessary consensus building to occur; that it never did can hardly be laid on my shoulders. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SLS launch cost

@JHunterJ: Hi, I would like to solicit your input on a debate around the launch cost of the SLS rocket.

Jadebenn made an edit here : https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=929316586&oldid=929241314

And since no one challenged his edit at the time he now considers it a consensus and refuses to revert back to old (and most importantely real) figures.

He refuses to debate my argument therefore I solicit your input into this.

Thanks - Moamem (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Dispute resolution. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NotBuro request

I found you on the recently active admins tool. I was wondering if it was possible for you or another admin to perform a WP:NOTBURO closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Floyd. Discussion seems to have come to a conclusion and it would probably better if we didn’t have to wait a week for the discussion to be closed.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 18:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hope that I'm doing this in the correct manner. I was just at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_Floyd page. I'm an unexperienced editor. I went to the Teahouse to ask about the delete tag above the George Floyd talk page. The editors at the Teahouse sent me back to the talk page, and I entered a topic to ask what to do about the delete tag with the heading - This article was nominated for deletion on 31 May 2020. The result of the discussion was redirect to Death of George Floyd.
Screenshot: https://i.postimg.cc/jd2Dh8PS/2020-07-21-1452-56-Screenshot.png
The answer was this:
That discussion (back in May) was about different page content. The current page George Floyd was created on 5 June 2020, after that earlier discussion. There is no consensus to move or delete the current George Floyd page. user:WWGB (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As per user:WWGB, I have deleted the tag asking for the George Floyd page to be deleted.
Let me know what I did or didn't do properly. Thanks in advance. Keep up the good work. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 02:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No issues with that sequence of edit events that I can see. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential dollar coins

"Presidential" in Presidential dollar coins is a proper noun as it is the name of a series of coins. Such names are always capitalized when referring to the coins, for example, "Standing Liberty" in Standing Liberty quarter should always be capitalized. There are almost no exceptions to this rule in numismatics. - ZLEA T\C 15:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will say thank you for bringing my attention to similar errors on the Presidential dollar coins article, though. - ZLEA T\C 15:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Listgap

I read that unwanted blank lines have been inserted on your behalf. I have a similar problem with AWB. I wonder if they may be related. Certes (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AWB broke a citation

This AWB edit on Royal Navy removed a section of on an url in a citation. I'm not sure why? I presume that wasn't the intention? I've fixed the link now but might be worth checking to make sure you haven't done anything similar on other articles. Woody (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, thanks. Looks like I just fat-fingered something in the interface -- user error. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, happens to all of us! Woody (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Ives

On the DAB page William Ives, you changed William Ive (disambiguation) to William Ive, English politician who sat in the House of Commons in 1624. I'm not sure why you chose that William Ives over the DAB link, but I have changed it back to William Ive (disambiguation). If that is a problem, please let me know. Leschnei (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because at the time the dab page wasn't useful. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see! thanks for the explanation. Leschnei (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Round Top

I'm confused by your move in which you moved the dab page to Round Top (disambiguation) and moved the Contra Costa County peak to Round Top. There isn't any overwhelmingly clear PRIMARYTOPIC for the name Round Top, and even if there is, it's the small town in Texas, not the Contra Costa peak. The Contra Costa peak is 4th place in pageviews, out of all the articles linked from the dab. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 03:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't move the disambiguation page. I reverted your move of the Contra Costa page that resulted in WP:MALPLACED dab page (per the edit summary). To change from the primary topic to no primary topic, use WP:RM to move the disambiguation page to the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commas

Would you show me where in Fowler, Gowers or other reputable BrE style guide your prescription "don't use a comma in a list of two prepositional phrases" is mentioned? Looks like an AmE superstition to me. I haven't met it in English usage. Tim riley talk 14:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me in them where is specifies using a comma in a list of two? Neither BrE nor AmE do that, AFAIK. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
relocated to Talk:Osbert Lancaster, where it should have been.

hatnote doesn't cover all items

There were four things in the disambiguation page: Human penis size, Micropenis, Small penis humiliation, or Small penis rule. Also six said to keep it, 2 said redirect, and one made a redirect joke about the president. I believe consensus was since there are four things in the article, it works best as a disambiguation page instead of a simple hatnote which would eliminate half the entries. Dream Focus 16:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The last two are indeed partial title matches, as mentioned in the discussion. The keeps were advocating for the navigation function, not the lack of primary topic. The hatnote works for that (and correctly avoids the partial title matches). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Washington

Good morning. Thank you for closing the Mount Washington move request. I saw that you moved the DAB page, but didn't move Mount Washington (New Hampshire) to Mount Washington. I tried completing it myself, but I couldn't. Calidum 13:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I got distracted cleaning up the dab. Finished! -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linking

I think it is Charles Street, Mayfair, not Charles Street, Mayfair because Mayfair in this context is a disambiguator, not part of the proper name of the place. Same goes for Garston and others. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oldenburg

When you moved Oldenburg to Oldenburg (city) and Oldenburg (disambiguation) to Oldenburg, you may have overlooked WP:FIXDABLINKS. The change broke 960 links (5% of the current bad links to DAB pages), which will have to be fixed manually. Narky Blert (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The move was requested by @BrownHairedGirl:. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert: see Talk:Oldenburg_(city)#Requested_move_29_June_2020. I'll start on the disambiguations later today. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I had found the move request (the link at Talk:Oldenburg is now circular, so I checked the revision history), and agree with the result. In instances like these, it's every hand to the pump. Don't assume that every link is intended for Oldenburg (city); in every case I've seen where WP:PTOPIC status had been removed, there were bad links-in which had been lying around for years. (The worst was Vinyl, where only 10-15% of around 2,500 links-in were correct.) Narky Blert (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert, I learnt in my first few weeks of disambiguation not to assume assume that every link is intended for Oldenburg (city). That was 14 years ago, since when I have dabbed many thousands of former primary topics. It's very rare to find one that is a clean set of correctly-targeted links.
Right now I am in the middle of disambiguating Globes/Globes (newspaper), which as usual was a mess. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
combined from a new section, as Gerda Arendt mentioned

I find the whole thing about the move confusing. Talk:Oldenburg tells me that a move discussion is on Talk:Oldenburg, where it's obviously not. Once I found it on Talk:Oldenburg (city), it was closed. I think the move was not helpful, - once established for Oldenburg meaning primarily a certain town, why change? Now many pages link to a dab, which doesn't even say that it used to be a certain town, - how is help with disambiguation meant to happen. Of course the German article name is different, because the German Wikipedia uses official names for towns. Could we at least do the same here, not say "(city)" while there are other towns? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only when saving did I see that there was a thread already. Combine if you like. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not easy. I dabbed a few. When you read "bishop of Oldenburg" it means the historic diocese/bishopricurg, which became prince-bishopric of Lübeck. Perhaps include that in the dab. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, when the move requests come in the talk page of an article to be moved from a name so another article can be moved to that name, that first issue arises. The change from "(city)" to the official name can be proposed at its talk page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gerda Arendt, there were about 780 links to be fixed. I have disambiguated over 500 of them. Most of them are to Oldenburg (city), but over 10% are to other uses. The remainder are mostly to one of the other meanings, but it's not clear which. That illustrates well why it's a bad idea not to disambiguate such a massively-ambiguous title: in this case it has led to hundreds of incorrect links. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried a few, and yes, it's a problem when users think there's only one Oldenburg. I met a "principality of Oldenburg" but only on one page. The best choice when uncertain might be to ask on the talk page, what else could be done when a biography just he was from Oldenburg. - I remember having to dab Halle, a similarly giant task. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shaarey Zedek Cemetery

Hi, I don't understand the logic of your page move. Many institutions and places are named "Shaarey Zedek" (with different spellings in English) — see Shaare Zedek. Meanwhile, we have a similarly named cemetery, Shaare Zedek Cemetery, Jerusalem, which was posted first. My logic in putting Winnipeg in parentheses in the present article was to maintain continuity with the parent synagogue, Shaarey Zedek Synagogue (Winnipeg). Yoninah (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find the other. I'll revert and put a cemetery disambiguation page in place. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
Note that continuity with the parent synagogue parenthetical isn't needed unless the child cemetery is also ambiguous on Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't use X (Winnipeg) unless some other X already exists, and Shaarey Zedek Cemetery didn't exist before the move I made. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Should the parentheses in the Winnipeg synagogue and cemetery page names be changed to a comma? Yoninah (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That I'm not sure of. Some naming conventions use parentheses and some use commas, and I'm not familiar with the guidelines for Canadian and Israeli synagogues and cemeteries. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closed move nominated by a sockpuppet account

It appears that the nominator for the move you closed at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War#Requested_move_9_June_2020 was later revealed to be a sockpuppet account and banned. Please have another look and see if anything needs to be done. Thanks. —Michael Z. 22:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rubin

Thanks for sorting out the undiscussed move of Michael Rubin. Please can you do the same with the talk pages? I can't synchronise them myself, as the redirect has more than one version. Thanks, Certes (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Martin

On 12 July, you moved Saint Martin to Saint Martin (island) and Saint Martin (disambiguation) to Saint Martin. Those moves broke 698 links.

The relevant portion of WP:FIXDABLINKS reads:

When creating disambiguation pages, fix all resulting mis-directed links.
Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links and repair them. [emphases in the original]

It was your duty to repair those broken links. You did not do so.

It was unfair to add several hundred links to the burden which DABfixers already face, of trying to keep up with the 400-700 new bad links to DAB pages created every day. There are about five of us, and we cannot quite keep up with those. See WP:TDD. Narky Blert (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: see above -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line break

When you edited Otello at line 117 with this edit, I noticed you replaced "<br>" with "<br />", yet "<br>" is inserted as a line break by the line-break button on the advanced toolbar of the edit window and seems to work exactly the same. Why do you change it? Is the toolbar button making a mistake? Should it be changed to insert "<br />"? --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are mostly identical, but <br /> is the correct form per the standard and there is a corner case or two where some secondary tools don't handle <br> correctly. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be a good idea to get the toolbar button changed as well? Or maybe it's already on a "to-do" list? --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, absolutely! If I should make that recommendation, do you know where to make it? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't, but I may be able to find out. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lynching of Wilbur Little

Regarding your edits to Lynching of Wilbur Little, please note that other people (such as myself) have been working extensively on this article for a long time, and Visual Editor is the tool I use. It is not appropriate to come along and change something like reference styles without first obtaining consensus.

I'm sorry that you combined multiple different changes into a single edit, which makes it difficult for me to back out just the parts which break VE. So, I'm going to re-undo your edit. Please don't restore this again. If you want to go back and re-do the other stylistic changes you made, that's fine, but don't break the reference formatting. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to break the combined cites apart while retaining the other improvements, that's fine. But your extensive work on the article does not give you WP:OWNership of it, nor prohibit other editors from only improving it the way you see fit. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JHunterJ, See https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Vrfgmvuox6xc2bih -- RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kamala

In your recent edit at Kamala, you removed the "Entertainment" section, which had quite a few entries, and instead redistributed them to the catchall "Other uses". MOS:DABGROUPING seems to encourage grouping the entertainers. Is there a different standard that you are applying? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Entertainment" is over-broad to the point of uselessness when the entertainment consists of 1 wrestler, 1 novel, 1 comic book character, 1 foreign film, 1 Finnish thrash metal band, and 1 Star Trek character; that hodgepodge seems much better served by "other uses". "Arts and entertainment" seems over-broad generally. It seems to have been added in 2015, but there's no discussion about it in archives 41 or 42. The non-consensus essay WP:LONGDAB (by the same editor) favors it, but also gets a lot of other things wrong in favor of their pet style, and resists changes by demanding any disagreement get overwhelming consensus even though there was no consensus for its author's wording. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that you at least get mention of "Arts and entertainment" removed from MOS:DAB. At worst, there is no consensus to remove such a section from dabs either. Still, I don't have any interest in adding it if there is consensus to remove it from the MOS. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crotalus concolor

I disagree with your closure of the RM at Talk:Crotalus concolor. I think there was a failure to establish whether "Yellow rattlesnake" is a more commonly used name than "Crotalus concolor". Please see the rationale in my expression of opposition to that move. No one expressed support for that move without first determining whether there is a consensus that "'Yellow rattlesnake' is the most common name", and I therefore see no consensus to move the article. The proposer did not even respond to the comments about that question. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw consensus to move it from the scientific name. There's no prejudice against requesting its move to a better English name (midget faded rattlesnake or faded rattlesnake?), but there was no reason presented to leave it at the scientific name. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna): "When there is no common name or no consensus can be reached on the most common name, or if it isn't clear what taxon the common name refers to (as in the sardine example above), use the scientific name." and the yellow rattlesnake does not meet those elements. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was a reason presented to leave it at the scientific name. Please see my comment about the discussion at Talk:Daboia palaestinae and the difference between what is meant by "common name" on Wikipedia and in scientific literature. In fact there was no support expressed for that move – only a conditional support for moving if another consensus was established first, and such a consensus was not established. In fact, "yellow rattlesnake" is not sufficiently unambiguous and has not been established as the most common name for the species. For example, I just did a web search and an image search for "yellow rattlesnake", and practically none of the results in the first few pages of search results were for Crotalus concolor, except for Wikipedia pages. Please note that there was no direct mention of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) in the discussion, and the closure is supposed to be a determination of consensus – not an independent decision based on other things that were not discussed. Moreover, it says to use the scientific name when "no consensus can be reached on the most common name", and I do not see any consensus being reached about the most common name. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I didn't introduce NC:FAUNA. I'm aware of it, and the final !vote as mentioned in the close introduced the common name argument as used there. The lawyery note above introduces arguments, however, which of course I did not consider in the close, since they weren't in the discussion I closed. But refocusing on encyclopedic improvement: "Crotalus concolor" appears from the discussion to be no better than "Yellow rattlesnake" (or "midget faded rattlesnake" or "faded rattlesnake" , which already redirected to the yellow rattlesnake article, but aren't bolded there and are listed in a secondary way, behind "yellow rattlesnake", which would appear to make it more common that the other common names; this however is a new argument, which is why there's no prejudice against moving it to one of those names if needed), and probably worse, based on the discussion there and my previous familiarity with Wikipedia naming conventions (which is part of my adminship, and not to be forgotten in individual discussions, see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). And the timber rattlesnake is not know as "yellow rattlesnake" (at least on Wikipedia), so that's no impediment.-- JHunterJ (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not noticing that WP:NCFAUNA was indeed mentioned during the discussion, although it was a different quote from it that was discussed. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may notice that someone else has now commented on the page, saying that "yellow rattlesnake" is not a well-known name for this snake. "Crotalus concolor" seems like a very good name for it, since it is well accepted and unambiguous. I plan to open a move review within a day or two. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may notice that the article itself leads with the identification of the species as yellow rattlesnake. It seems now that you would like me to consider yet another new argument that wasn't present in the move discussion, while at the same time accusing me of introducing new arguments because I'm aware of Wikipedia naming conventions. Seems like a lot more bureaucracy than simply starting a discussion (there) as to what a good name for the article would be, and then getting it moved there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a new argument. That argument was raised during the RM discussion, when I said "I tend toward oppose for Crotalus concolor. It does not seem clear to me that Crotalus concolor is most commonly known as "Yellow rattlesnake" or that it is the primary topic for that term. ..." The best idea that I have about what the article name should be is just the name the article already had. My impression is that reverting the name change would be better as an MR than as a second RM since I don't see any real basis for the consensus declaration of closure. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"It does not seem clear to me" is not a common name or primary topic criterion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for Crotalus concolor

An editor has asked for a Move review of Crotalus concolor. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sankat Mochan Hanuman Temple

Hi, i have a small doubt,i see Sankat Mochan Hanuman Temple, Shimla deleted article that redirects draft to main space, why? --Prasanth202 (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its deletion log says:
  • 20:15, 24 August 2020 Fastily deleted page Sankat Mochan Hanuman Temple, Shimla (R2: Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace)
  • 19:47, 24 August 2020 KylieTastic moved page Sankat Mochan Hanuman Temple, Shimla to Draft:Sankat Mochan Hanuman Temple, Shimla (Undersourced, incubate in draftspace (via script))
I would point you to their talk pages for the why. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check User User:Ygolonac666, creating articles in a single line. --Prasanth202 (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Begin with User talk:Ygolonac666. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asking

i don't understand please explain me what is Twinkle and how do i use it. --Prasanth202 (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Wikipedia:Twinkle. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JHunterJ, Thank you now i understand. Prasanth202 (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Fire Drill (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Fire Drill (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
  • disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
  • is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asking

i asked someone he doesn't reply hope you help me i want know am i eligible for new page reviewer permission--Prasanth202 (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Obtaining the new user right. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User Report

User:Poljjuutre created 13 articles in Main this user creating article in a one or two lines with single citation i thought this user escaped from reviewers or something review this user. If am i wrong notify me. Thank You Links: Database reports | xtools Edit Count --Prasanth202 (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Poljjuutre. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect reviews

An editor has asked for a redirect review of King of Rock and Roll. Because you closed the redirect discussion for this page or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the redirect review. Neel.arunabh (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a redirect review of Queen of Soul. Because you closed the redirect discussion for this page or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the redirect review. Neel.arunabh (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a redirect review of Queen of Pop. Because you closed the redirect discussion for this page or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the redirect review. Neel.arunabh (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a redirect review of King of Pop. Because you closed the redirect discussion for this page or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the redirect review. Neel.arunabh (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wanting new AWB binary release

I see from several comments above, and from the edit that was recently cited in AWB talk, that you're aware of its habit of dropping short descriptions below hatnotes. Did you (like me) build a private binary, or are you using double-click magic in the editor? In any case, as they made the fix in source last November, and the 6.1.0.1 release is almost a year old, can you add your voice to my request for a 6.1.0.2 release? David Brooks (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket to Ride

How come you closed the discussion so quickly at the talk page and then made the page move, when it had hardly been a week since the proposal was raised? FWIW, I was just about to weigh in there. The song article and the game article have existed for years ... why the rush, in a matter of days? JG66 (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move requests last for one week; there was no rush. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't afford JamesEdition

Can user:I can't afford JamesEdition please be blocked ASAP for vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't been warned yet. See WP:V and Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BCE+CE vs BC+AD

Hunter, that's VERY hot water. I'm personally fully in favour of BCE+CE in every article that is not on a strictly Christian topic, but you'll have half the Wiki editing population going for the jugular. If you want and can fight it out, good luck, but I reached the conclusion that it's not a fight worth fighting.

The concrete case on that page is that several articles are titled XYZ (... BC), and only the 70 CE one is with CE. Which is dumb beyond any definition of that word (calling events predating Jesus after him, but the one postdating him w/o referring "Christ"). Whatever. This whole can of worms is actually a double one, also tapping into the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" (everything does, really, if you're asking certain people), one that even has its own abbreviation: I/P, or maybe A/P (Arab...), I don't know and don't care much to know. May the Power be with you! Cheers, Arminden (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You changed AD to CE. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You caught me :))) I had forgotten it. Won't stay that way for long, I guess. Arminden (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cite bundling

I do not think it is prudent to bundle citations on undeveloped pages. In most cases, 2 or 3 cites next to each other are not disruptive to reading. However, with the use of the Visual Editor, bundling will lead to duplication of citations to sentences that do not require all of the citations in the bundle. I would advise not bundling citations, unless there are more than three citations. Of course, in a FA article, all bundling is a good idea. Just some food for thought. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your move of Umar to Omar

I don't see a consensus for move on the talk page. Especially given the arguments presented that "Omar" is more ambiguous and other similar articles use the "U" spelling. Khestwol (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Omar#Requested move 19 September 2020 showed consensus. The one oppose said "per above", but the "above" was changed to support. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So this was decided by simply counting the !votes? Khestwol (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. The only oppose said "per above", but the "above" was changed to support, so consensus (not vote counting) was for support. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article is very important in the history of Islam so I think, since only three editors participated, relisting will be good for a more thorough consensus. Also I think a closing admin should consider all arguments presented (after my first comment I wrote other arguments in opposition) and not just the first words of the !votes. Khestwol (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest opening this topic at Talk:Omar, and if a consensus forms for a new move, it can be undertaken. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MacArthur

Hi - Did you mean to drop the short description here? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 21:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It was the second short description on the page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Twice#Requested move 20 September 2020

You're kidding, right, with this close? There is absolutely no consensus to move by any measure of the votes presented, and in fact a clear majority opposing a move. Why the hand-wave dismissal of the views of so many commenters? Feels like another SUPERVOTE that you should rescind. -- Netoholic @ 04:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That looks like a supervote, JHJ. 12 oppose, 6 support, and initiated by a little-used account. SarahSV (talk) 05:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The close has the explanation, but I expected the usual cries of supervoting. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With a raw ratio of 12-6, you need an airtight, solid justification. Your close is far from that. Just re-close as no consensus (which is generous, since anyone else would read it as consensus not to move). -- Netoholic @ 12:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The policy and guideline-based discussion showed consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I came here seeking to open a discussion on this as well. WP is not a democracy, but when there are twice (get the pun?) as many opinions in one direction, I do not think you can so easily find a consensus to overturn the status quo, especially when both sides used policy-based arguments. It did feel like a super-vote as opposed to a consensus summary. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 12:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The policy-based opinions were twice as many in the direction of the close. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JHunterJ, please reconsider. @Netoholic and El cid, el campeador: I don't have time to start a move review at the moment, but in case either of you want to do it (assuming JHunterJ won't reconsider), instructions are at WP:IMR. SarahSV (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This was a clear oppose result. Can't understand the rationale for the close. Not policy based? Utter rubbish. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:ASTONISH were clearly cited either directly or indirectly by the opposers. I will certainly initiate a move review if you don't reconsider and nobody else does first. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Twice#Requested move 20 September 2020
User !vote Guideline Applicable?
Synoman Barris (OP) (presumed support) no support presented
Old Naval Rooftops Oppose -
Ortizesp Oppose WP:PRIMARYTOPIC No, just "I doubt it meets"
Station1 Support WP:PRIMARYUSAGE Yes
In ictu oculi Oppose -
Redalert2fan Oppose -
Red Slash Oppose -
Nkon 21 Oppose -
Xezbeth Support PRIMARYUSAGE, WP:NOTDICT Yes
DanTheMusicMan2 Support PRIMARYUSAGE Yes
Dohn joe Support PRIMARYTOPIC, NOTDICT Yes
Lugnuts Oppose WP:ASTONISH Yes
Netoholic Oppose PRIMARY TOPIC and ASTONISH Yes (for ASTONISH only)
El cid, el campeador Oppose ASTONISH Yes
WPmurphy Support PRIMARYUSAGE and WP:NWFCTM Yes
Necrothesp Oppose -
Ab207 Oppose PRIMARYTOPIC No, the long-term significance was compared to a topic not convered (and so not ambiguous)
Zxcvbnm Oppose WP:NOPRIMARY and NWFCTM No, no support for those, given the usage presented

So the supports have WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, WP:NOTDICT, and WP:NWFCTM, and the opposes have WP:ASTONISH. In evaluation, it seemed that the application of WP:ASTONISH was dependent upon treating the encyclopedia like a dictionary; readers looking for "Twice" here are not dictionary readers looking for "twice", and in resolving the close, and I also put a wiktionary link in the hatnote for those readers using the encyclopedia as a dictionary. So both in numbers of guidelines-based arguments and in evaluating those arguments, the conclusion was "move".

And the predictable cries of WP:SUPERVOTE come, and predictably focus on the numbers of votes cast (contrary to WP:NOTVOTE), which is ironic since just two sections before this I was accused (just as spuriously) of just counting votes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think that a guideline must be linked to for the !vote to be valid. It is obvious in most cases that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or WP:ASTONISH was being cited, whether it was linked or not. But you apparently ignored opinions if they did not slavishly link to a guideline. That's frankly ridiculous and is not in the spirit of Wikipedia discussion. So yes, I'm afraid it does look like you're applying a supervote. There was certainly no consensus to move here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH, I'm afraid it just looks like the usual cries of supervote whenever WP:NOTVOTE comes up. The strength of the arguments for support was stronger, and there was consensus to move here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, really there wasn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since I am mentioned, I have presented my opinion at move review, to be sincere I was so inclined to move it at WP:RM/TR but I knew it was this controversial. Cheers Megan☺️ Talk to the monster 08:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I was not aware of this new request following the heated move request I was involved in. I just wanted to say Thank you, and that had I been aware of your request, I would have supported it. Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DeNoel: you're not too late. See the Move review! -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh—I see this is not about the second (twice) 25 September 2020 Rule 34 article move. Explains why I didn't see Rule 34 in the Move review. My mistake, but I'm still happy with how things turned out. I just hadn't expected a new request so soon after the previous one, to have been so successful.
Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 04:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for Twice

An editor has asked for a Move review of Twice. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 12:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for Omar

An editor has asked for a Move review of Omar. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Khestwol (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Typhoon Maysak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Typhoon Haishen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Thomas

After your recent move of Vernon Thomas, should Vernon Thomas (disambiguation) (with its malformed {{intitle}} call) go per WP:ONEOTHER (or if blanked and redirected, WP:G14)? The hatnote does everything necessary.

(If that DAB page is on your wait-seven-days-then-nuke-it list, consider this a support !vote.) Narky Blert (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but it's not orphaned. The two incoming links would have to be addressed, so I left it for them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Afd

WP:G14 doesn't apply, as there are two articles (town and village) for each all but one of the dab pages, but that doesn't change the inevitable verdict. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gah. Thanks. I just read it as coving unnecessary disambiguation pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Octavius (disambiguation)

Why on earth did you close the discussion at Talk:Octavius (disambiguation)? Are you aware that I did in fact provide arguments for this so-called implicit "consensus"? 50% of the respondents agreed with me, so the discussion was far from over. You have no right to just arbitrarily shut down a discussion like that for no reason. Did you even go through the trouble of reading the whole thing? Avis11 (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because a week had passed, which is the usual duration of requested moves, and the discussion was not active. Your original proposal and the respondent who agreed with you WP:PERNOM did not show a reason to change from the current arrangement, and your argument after your non-collegial exchange in the discussion based on Scholar was balanced by the argument based on Google. And your post here fails to assume good faith. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An 'implicit consensus', by the very guidelines you yourself provided when justifying your closure, ceases to exist if any editor (me) objects to it. Thus, the individual who opposed me should have given an argument other than this now-inexistent 'implicit consensus' if he wished to keep the previous version. Since he did not, his argument was as empty as that other one which you claim is insufficiently in my favor. Calidum's argument, despite its lack of merit (based either on his bad faith or his misunderstanding of the rules), effectively obstructed the whole thing, hence my 'non-collegial' demand for him to withdraw it. All his obstruction needed to succeed was for a negligent, sloppy and unattentive administrator (you) to give it undue weight and baldly declare that the discussion was thenceforth closed.
Furthermore, WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, which I linked to in the discussion, says that, to determine a primary topic, "usage in English reliable sources demonstrated with Google Ngram viewer, Books, Scholar, News, and Trends" is to be preferred over simple web searches. You're wrong in claiming "the discussion based on Scholar was balanced by the argument based on Google". Not only that, but Calidum was also flatly wrong in claiming a simple Google search supported his argument – it doesn't, and this is something I pointed out back in the discussion as well. Presumably you didn't bother reading any of this either and just decided to close the discussion when some automatic seven-day-wait trigger activated in your head. I don't care whether you acted in good or bad faith, what matters is that you acted with conspicuous unpreparedness for an administrator, and that you're the third person to obstruct this for me without good reason – the second being Calidum and the first being an IP-using pest who (without justification) moved this to the 'controversial moves' section and never bothered to join the discussion afterwards. Avis11 (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, one editor disagreeing with an existing implicit consensus does not cause it to cease to exist; there's nothing in those "very guidelines" that says anything like that. The misunderstanding of the "rules" is yours. Since you've progressed from assuming bad faith to personal attacks, kindly move along. WP:MR is thataway if you like.-- JHunterJ (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't bother notifying you, but he has since taken this to MR. -- Calidum 01:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're dismissive and you fail to address all points in defense of your conduct. I'll quote verbatim from the guidelines so you can understand. WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS: Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. Yes, my edit was "disputed", but the editor who did so should've had presented an argument other than 'implicit consensus', otherwise the whole thing becomes a circular deadlock (which you helped to enforce).
It will also be useful to quote (again) from WP:DPT: primary topic is partly determined by "Usage in English reliable sources demonstrated with Google Ngram viewer, Books, Scholar, News, and Trends. Simple web searches may be problematic". Your claim that my "non-collegial exchange in the discussion based on Scholar was balanced by the argument based on Google" is thus flatly wrong and further shows your disregard of the guidelines. Calidum of course failed to argue against this as well, and did not provide any evidence to support his position aside from falsely claiming 'Augustus' is the primary Google search topic, yet you still gave undue weight to his position. Avis11 (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Was it "later ... revised by another editor without dispute?" (Answer key: No.) I am dismissive of editors who assume bad faith and make personal attacks. To repeat: move along. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FOr the millionth time, you just skimmed through instead of actually reading. Here is the critical part which you missed: "Yes, my edit was "disputed", but the editor who did so should've had presented an argument other than 'implicit consensus', otherwise the whole thing becomes a circular deadlock (which you helped to enforce)". And at no point I did I actually assume bad faith or really make any personal insults. Avis11 (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you agree that I was correct that the guidelines do not actually say what you said they did, but we will disagree on your assumption of bad faith (here, in the original RM, and in the current MR) and your personal attack ("negligent, sloppy and unattentive administrator (you)"). Move. Along. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JHunterJ/Archive_40&oldid=984536591"