User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Stark dab page

And Stark looks like crap. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Stark needs to be split into a surname list article and a dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Should I tag it with {{split-apart}}? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I use {{disambig-cleanup}} with a comment <!-- needs to be split into surname list article and disambiguation page --> -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Added it on that one and Starks. Shouldn't Hp be the page name for HP (disambiguation)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it doesn't look like. hp should redirect to Horsepower; fixed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Check out Jynx. I wasn't sure which redirect two use in one of the lines so I put two. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Harshing my mellow

I recently prodded the nominal dab page Harshing my mellow because it doesn't disambiguate any existing article. There's a red link to an album title and a Wiktionary link but no entry for the phrase. But the original editor removed the template. Should this go to AfD? I know dab pages aren't technically articles, but what are the options for this? --ShelfSkewed Talk 05:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I responded to the original editor just now on Talk:Harshing my mellow. Yes, dab deletions are handled through the AfD process as if they were articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Your accusations here was not very polite, nor was it correct. --evrik (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    I am happy to hear that. Can we proceed with cleaning up the pages in accordance with WP:D and WP:MOSDAB then? -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I just removed the prod (again). You can quote or misquote policy to justify whatever the end to your means is. All the references like Harshing My Mellow (album) have now been redirected. The {{Disambig}} still serves a purpose simply by existing. You certainly have a bee in your bonnet about this, so I suggest that rather than wasting your or my time with it that you {{Afd}} it if you really can't live with its existance. --evrik (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    Of course, I didn't prod it either time -- there is consensus against the version you are clinging too, and the consensus is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about this, so I suggest that you read WP:OWN and the other guidelines referenced in Talk:Harshing my mellow rather than wasting your time, my time, and other editors in an AfD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Crash

See Crash (a page I recently "fixed"). Should the TOC at the HP dab be like the one at Baba? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I wanted you to take a gander at the hatlink at FLASH (it was removed, but I re-placed a "cleaner" one). Was I correct in doing this at Dragon Ball?
And I'm wondering if:
  1. Category:Naruto goes also to Naruto (disambiguation)?
  2. Category:Hellsing goes also to Hellsing (disambiguation)?
  3. Category:InuYasha goes also to InuYasha (disambiguation)?
etc. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Viz (disambiguation) needs your magic touch (note that Viz should be mentioned at the top per guidelines). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about the categorization. TOCs are also variable. I took a shot at Viz (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Who should I ask concerning same name categories on dabs? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Genie

After you answer that, see if Genie (disambiguation)‎ needs a touch-up. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(PS: Journey to the West (disambiguation) and Saiyūki may still need formatting and perhaps a "See also" connecting the two could suffice.) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. Guess it means a hat is necessary at Journey to the West (TV series). How's Saiyuki look? And where to place Category:Journey to the West? Oh, I meant Batman (disambiguation) when I said "Genie", sorry. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Saiyuki (and Genie) look good. I don't know about the other categories; it's a mystery to me. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Journey to the West

Can you put a better dab here? (I can't decide) And since there's a 1996 TV series redirect, would MOSDAB prefer a redirect like Journey to the West (1986 TV series) over Journey to the West (TV series) on Journey to the West (disambiguation)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no guideline preference for Journey to the West (1986 TV series) over Journey to the West (TV series), unless you're going to use such a redirect link to avoid putting any descriptive text after the link. I happened to use the (TVB) direct link in the hatnote, but not because it's a direct link - at that point, using the channel to differentiate them seemed appropriate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Tried to shorten as much as I can here. Look good? And I've tagged Superman (disambiguation) for cleanup. Have you looked at Chi-Chi recently? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, looks good. I cleaned up Chi-Chi. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

DABs

Hi, Could you lead me to the MOS section that deals with "people with the family name ... ". I notice you have been editing them into a separate section (Batman (disambiguation)) for example) which looks rather ungainly so I guess you have a MOS reason. Thanks. Abtract (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It used to be the those entries would simply be deleted from the disambiguation page, since the subjects are not commonly referred to by the single name. After discussion, however, we ended up with WP:MOSDAB#Given names or surnames, in effect "staging" the list at the end of the dab page until it grows long enough to be spun off into its own Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy list article. (Or, if the surname or given name is the primary topic, the disambiguation list should be spun off to its own page.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. What's the point of the surname|Batman tag? The mosdab section you referred me to doesn't say it should be used (only in separate name pages as I read it)Abtract (talk) 12:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
That template adds the page to the appropriate category and alerts readers to the difference between that section and the rest of the page. The guideline only indicates when the disambig tag should not be used; it does not say that the surname tag should only be used then. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, it looks a little inelegant to me and adds nothing but you are the expert. :) Abtract (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Walker vandalism

I was doing the same. You hit the submit button quicker. I didn't see an edit conflict message though. Anyway, I reorganized the Walker page afterwards to use categories. WikiParker (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Superman and Batman

Here's Batman after I touched it and Superman after I touched it. Think these cleanings were appropiately made or were a few spots incorrect? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And I feel like tagging Scarface, but maybe all that's needed is some delinking? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your version of Batman (although I don't care how they're ordered in See also): "the album" isn't needed, "also known as Batman" is better served by placing it in the entry, not in the description, and italicizing Batman is a good idea in the particular See also links. Superman, the new version is missing some needed articles "a" or "an". Most of the "song" entries need no description at all -- Eminem song, song by Eminem is redundant. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
What should be done? I'm guessing revert to my Batman revision, but leave which edits based on this discussion? I'll do those fixes to the Superman dab now. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll leave Superman to you, actually. Not sure which need "a" "the", "an", etc., and the song ones confuse me. However, Stark appears to need a little cleaning. I'll get that done. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Done with Stark, however, wasn't sure how to group the various physics-related articles? Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Superman done. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Variants

You said on a recent edit to Goki that mosdab doesnt mention variant spellings but it sort of does when it speaks against variants of initials (eg ABC, abc, A-B-C etc)? In the absence of clearer guidelines, I have taken this to apply also to spelling variants. Abtract (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not take the variants of initials to speak to spelling variants, especially when the variant spellings redirect to the base name. This may be a good topic to clarify on WT:MOSDAB though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Name redirects

And Batman? BTW, would the redirect "People with the family name Stark" be necessary per the guidelines? And should I add the "{{disambig-cleanup}} <!-- needs to be split into surname list article and disambiguation page -->" to pages which don't yet have a surname entry? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Check out Adventures of Superman. Think I did well there? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Adventures looks good. I didn't have time for more than Superman this morning (and probably won't get to Batman now either). No, I don't think redirects for "X with the name Y" are needed by the guidelines, although if they help avoid or defuse an edit war, then they're useful. I'm not sure about the last question about dab cleanup on pages which don't have a surname entry. Example? -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Yusuke, Kazuma, Yukina, Botan, and Kuwabara to name a few (yes, each happen to reference YuYu Hakusho characters). In any event, should they be tagged as such and will you be getting to Batman soon? BTW, how was my tiny trim to this dab? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Batman tagged again. No, Yusuke et al. are short enough to keep together. Surname lists should be split from dab pages (or vice versa) when the surname list gets too long (not precisely defined) or when an editor wants to add article information about the surname and its origins. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll keep that in mind. Nice work here, but I thought the layout would be "Batman (entertainer) or Marques Houston, etc.", or some redirect of the sort. Thoughts? Oh, how was the edit to Naruto (disambiguation)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
No such redirect existed, and one isn't absolutely mandatory -- if another editor objects to the inclusion of such an entry, then I'd take it upon myself to create a redirect if I felt the inclusion was warranted. That last trim may be too much. I prefer "Naruto stable, a stable of..." to the new version, for instance. I like "Noun, a noun phrase" instead of "Noun, of a prepositional phrase" in general. If "Naruto stable" is brief enough to need no description, fine; otherwise I'd go ahead an restate what it is. Kind of like "Some title (film), a 1991 film" or "Some guy (actor), a British actor". -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You lost me J. I did the edits because I remember you telling me that repeating things that are already in the wiki-link is unneeded and/or redundant. Do you not recall that instance? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I said this "Noun (distinguishing phrase), a distinguishing phrase" kind of thing was unnecessary -- if the parenthetical is sufficient to tell the reader what she needs to know, let it. If not, "Noun (distinguishing phrase), a fuller explanation of the distinguishing phrase" is the form I use, even though it repeats the words "distinguishing phrase". -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Should I partially revert myself on the Naruto dab or fully revert? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not a big deal, I don't think. If I just came upon the page, I wouldn't edit it to change those things. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Eggman

I did some final touches to Eggman. The person who repaired Egghead (disambiguation) didn't do so well a job methinks. You want to see to that one or should I? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You should, certainly. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll nail it. Was this appropiate? If the content will be redirected, should it not also be merged? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, three-letter acronyms (with or without periods) are usually combined with the dab page for the word spelled by those three letters (if one exists). Yes, the content should be merged, and it looks like it was. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Um, I did an update here and Abtract reverted my edits blindly, calling everything pointless. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
How was this? And you never replied to my last question here. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
"Never did" to something that was initiated earlier today is a bit abrupt. Patience. I have a long watchlist of my own too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I am calm, just assumed you didn't see it, as you sometimes do miss my comments. Please, take your time. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't mean to imply that -- sorry. The blank line after "may [also] refer to:" (such as on Zero gravity) isn't needed, and I would normally omit it. If the redirect for the video game already existed, it was right to use it. If it didn't already exist, again here I wouldn't create it unless another editor was objecting to the inclusion without it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
So technically, someone else has to create the redirect? What if the article references that it is also known by such and such name? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Nope, you're welcome to create the redirect. But its existence isn't mandatory, and I'm lazy (or efficient, if you prefer), so I don't in that case. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Au

Could you have a look at this please? Abtract (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Looked and tried to answer. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Abtract (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Zero

Wow, did you know there was a Zero and Zero (disambiguation)? Abtract redirected one. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't realize. The redirect looks fine; I made some other tweaks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
There's a semi edit war on Zero gravity (disambiguation) and I'd like for you‎ to respond on the talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Chimed in. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Huh? I didn't see a second reply from you there. Did you forget to save or something? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ice (comics)

I was really unsure on what to do with Ice (comics) so I made it into a dab. That ok? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If "Ice (comics)" lacked a primary target, it should be redirected to Ice (disambiguation) and {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} added to the redirect page. However, it looks here like Ice (comics) has a primary topic, so I undid the earlier editor's move and added a hatnote to the primary topic to point to Icemaiden. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The editor undid your edit. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Saw you were involved with naming (headaches) conventions with a certain user. I was wondering if you could provide input on Andrew Nolan and Gladiator (Kallark). -66.109.248.114 (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC).
Moved Andrew Nolan back. Left Gladiator (Kallark) alone -- nothing particularly "wrong" with it, as a dab phrase is needed, and I'm not familiar enough with the topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Latina (disambiguation)

Thanks for that. I am not fully familiar with many policies, so assumed if I had done something wrong you would point it out. :) Dreaded Walrus t c 14:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. The urge to replace redirects with direct links seems to be primal. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Abtract edits

The person removed a redirect here and, while this isn't mandatory, should one just go ahead and take off redirects from dabs when they feel like it? There's still an edit war at Zero gravity (disambiguation) and although I gave a reason to this change, Abtract insists to keep it as this for not a very good reason I believe. Thoughts? Please reply on Talk:Zero gravity (disambiguation). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Corrected "Space Pen". -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. And of his edit to Gun (disambiguation)? Was it suitable to just take off the redirect? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that one looks good -- the game is "Gun", not "GUN", in Wikipedia-style caps. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Did you propose that there should to be {{distinguish}} tags on Yum cha and Yamucha? Abtract did both of them but I thought it was only the first one that needed dabbing. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I offered some information on another hatnote that could be used. Usually is X is not to be confused with Y, Y is also not to be confused with X, though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Tupac

Should redirects like Tupac (Disambiguation) be created? Note the capital "D". Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I tagged it for speedy deletion with {{db-typo}}. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll certainly keep that in mind. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Earth Two

And Earth Two targets a dab page. Shouldn't it go to Earth-Two? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as a {{R from alternative punctuation}}. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ice Maiden

And I don't think Abtract did a good job at Ice Maiden. For example, the primary sentence doesn't match the dab title and "(Ice maiden)" is used instead of "(Ice Maiden)" for two of the entries. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you two keep hitting the same articles? In this case, rather than creating your own redirect, you might have Moved the lowercase ones to the uppercase version. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
IMHO Abtract is stalking me. It's either that or a mere coincedence that we happen to cross paths, but I highly doubt that. Anyway, can you tell him to stop lowercasing words on dabs unless the article(s) give it as so? It's a pain fixing them really, and he goes as far as calling me a "harasser" whenever I try to correct his edits, not to mention substitutes simple discussion with edit warring (see histories on Yamucha and Yum cha) which irritates me to death, considering the fact that the user has been told many times (even by you) to engage in discussion and not revert. So, would you kindly alert this user? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You each seem to abrade the other, which is a shame. This probably won't build any harmony. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

External links

What's the rule on this? Whoever cleaned Doomsday did not do so well a job methinks. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No external links on dabs, right. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball and Haruka

And how was my recent edit to Dragon Ball? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't tell whether the links in the "See also" of Haruka should be italisised or not. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Those look fine. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Atom Smasher

I have to ask, why are you separating topics into different sections? And was I right in my edits to Atom Smasher (disambiguation)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To avoid too-deep indents, and the keep the conversations chronological. Yes, looks fine. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is Atom Smasher the primary name for particle accelerator? I ask this because the article makes no mention of it, from what I've read. Are you pondering what I'm pondering? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Atom Smasher isn't the primary name for particle accelerator. The way the redirects are currently set up, particle accelerator is the primary topic sought for the term Atom Smasher. The primary name for particle accelerator is "particle accelerator". That has nothing to do with dabbing, but may be discussed on Talk:Particle accelerator, Talk:Atom Smasher, or as a Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
What's the difference between "primary name" and "base name"? I believe I may have confounded the two. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
In the case of Atom Smasher (disambiguation), the primary topic is particle accelerator while the base name remains Atom Smasher. The base name of any Wikipedia article (or redirect) is the title of the article minus any disambiguating parethetical. The primary topic (if any) of an ambiguous phrase is (supposed to be) the topic of the article you end up on when you enter the ambiguous phrase in the Go box. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I see. Guess I did mix the two after all. Well, WP:RFD sounds like the best bet. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Inclusively, would Atom-Smasher (comics) and Atom Smasher (comics) be better off redirecting to Albert Rothstein? I ask because Atom-Smasher targets there. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know where the redirects should point -- I'm not familiar with the subject area. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
That makes two of us. So should Atom-Smasher remain as the base name for Albert Rothstein? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the subject area, like I said. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem, I have corrected the redirects. Abtract (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

0, Yusuke, and something else soon

That line in 0: 0̸, the slashed zero character, shouldn't it be 0̸ or slashed zero, the slashed zero character? How's Yusuke doing? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it could be "0̸ or slashed zero" instead. The other Unicode redirects in "See also" should be changed to match though. Yusuke is a given name list, which is to say I think it's doing fine. -- JHunterJ (talk)
Something else: which version was better on the Superman dab? Here's mine, and Rhindle The Red's. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hope you didn't miss this thread? And this one. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Rhindle's. Disambiguating parentheticals are out of place in the unlinked portion of the entry. And there's no reason to prefer Superman X (Kell-L) over Superman X. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I've just learned that Superman X has appeared in a comic so shouldn't that line be, a character in Legion of Super-Heroes., and not, a character in the Legion of Super Heroes television series.? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Superman (disambiguation) doesn't reflect any discussion about this topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Force (disambiguation)

I would appreciate it if you could look at this page. I have cleaned it quite extensively (I am pretty sure according to MOS:DAB - I could be wrong) but two other editors disagree. Abtract (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your direction, although I did make some minor modifications to it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, let's see if it works. Abtract (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ass, Deep Six, Jinx, Alucard

And does this dab and this one need cleaning or is it just me? Also I hope you noted the query above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Something's wrong with Jinx (disambiguation) but I can't quite put my finger on it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with those dabs. If they seem wrong, you could tag them for cleanup or bring it up on their talk pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Will do. Can you move Deep six to Deep Six per the linked articles there? I'm unable to do so. How's this one doing? Think donkey shouldn't be the first. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
How was this? I still feel that the descriptions are too long. What to do? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
And I don't believe that trivia on Alucard (see Dracula reference) should be needed. What do you think? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Deep Six has been moved. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
And I have dealt with Jinx, Ass and Alucard for you. Abtract (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Concerning this, J, I was adhering what you said about fiction in disambiguation pages. If it does not apply to characters, is "fictional" needed for every other use? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it does not apply to every other use. Characters are fictional. Novels are not. "Fictional character" is more redundant than "fictional novel". Every other use would be determined on its own merits, by consensus for that article or dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

65.31.33.93

Thanks for restoring [1] the two messages on 65.31.33.93 (talk · contribs)`s talk page. With all the message deletions, I went back and reviewed every edit to the page in order to make sure nothing was lost. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure -- mine was easy (for me), since I was in the middle of placing my response and got the edit conflict a few times. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

AS

Tried to place all variants and other formats here. How's it look? There were a couple terms in AS#Science and technology that I was unsure of linking as redirects. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I'd opt for Associate of Science, Attosecond, and Attosiemens in those cases. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Not bad? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I ment to say "synthase",

Thank you!

AWB on load now complaining about new rule : Too many )'s. TestPilot 19:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. TestPilot 19:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Fu

I just tagged the dab page Fu for cleanup. I thought I'd bring it to your attention, rather than attempting it myself, because it seemed like the kind of page you've dealt with before, and I thought you'd have a better idea about how do deal with the various permutations of the Asian-languages characters. Cheers --ShelfSkewed Talk 20:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of them didn't have articles, or any articles that looked to need dabbing. I made my effort, though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Very clean. But I'll wager that many of the uses you removed (particularly the universities) will be creeping back in.--ShelfSkewed Talk 02:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Matt Smith

Some links look notable, others do not, see this. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. I've done it before too, but perhaps "notable" is the wrong way to describe these. It doesn't matter how notable they are, just whether there's a WP article to link. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Malplaced disambigs

The analysis of the latest database dump shows 47 pages that were on the last dump 2 months ago and are still "malplaced disambigs". Two possibilities come to mind: (1) some over-enthusiastic editors are moving pages back to the (disambiguation) title after they have been fixed; or (2) someone is marking pages as fixed that haven't really been. Since you and I seem to do the majority of the work on this page between us, I think we need to be vigilant to check the pages that other people are claiming as "fixed." --Russ (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Satan (comics), Brian Boru, Rogue, and Rouge

What do you think? Do the guidelines disapprove of these kinds of dabs? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should merged and made into a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} to Satan (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
This sort of needs your disambig repair touch-up. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
That Brian Boru guy moved Invisible Kid to a longer name. Invisible Kid becomes a disambiguation in this instance? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Moved back. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I gave him a warning regarding his page move. Does Invisible Kid (disambiguation) look legitimate? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, is there a need for the other comma in the second line? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
How should the top layout be for Rogue and Rouge? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The "Not to be confused with" hatnotes are a good idea here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I know that. I was referring to the position of the wiktionary boxes. Are they placed ok? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
And how's this one? BTW, Rogue River may need a tiny bit of cleaning and Rogue (film) is targeting Rogue (2007 film). Can you move the page? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Good. Tag it for cleaning. Moved. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Karakuri and Doomsday

And you may want to look at this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

How about Talk:Karakuri? Use the page Talk pages first, please. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Should I state the obvious there? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't put it more simple than this. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I think waiting only three hours for a response is over-hasty, and I think you should approach other users less confrontationally -- "since you persist" and "obviously" were unneeded there; a simple list of the problems -- "the descriptions are too long, titles need to be formatted" -- would have been better. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Wish you told me this sooner, as I've only conveyed my feelings. Karakuri (manga) redirects to its author. Does this signify a removal? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Not as long as the redirect target page mentions "Karakuri". -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

文 disamb page edits

Relocated to Talk:文.

PL (disambiguation) and the Roberto Carlos dab

So, how was my edit here? Thinking the page could use a few more tweaks? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoever cleaned this up did not do so well a job. I could be wrong though, are periods needed in some instances? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
PL looks good, except for a redlink I removed. Fixed Roberto Carlos. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Doomsday

Was this a smart move? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. "Doomsday" doesn't appear on the linked article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Reversion to Torres (disambiguation)

Is the page Teton in accordance with WP:MOSDAB? Jespinos (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked Teton around a bit, but it looked pretty good to start with. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Then instead of having just reverted my edit to Torres (disambiguation), you should have modified it in a similar way as that of Teton page. Jespinos (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
If you meant to ask what was wrong with Torres, asking what's wrong with Teton seems like a bad choice. Your edit to Torres (disambiguation) disagrees with WP:MOSDAB#Individual entries: one blue link per entry. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I checked the guideline indicating one blue link per entry, but that was the reason for the question about Teton. I wanted know if it was correct to put more than one entry linking articles that, apart from their names, are closely related each other. Jespinos (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not. Teton didn't do that either, though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Kuwabara

I forget, does this go against guidelines? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than ;People:, the (dab) guidelines specify (and I prefer) In '''people''':, but on a surname page, who knows? I often just lead with a non-group, non-header "Notable people with the family name include:". The edits to the descriptions are good a proper. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
What exactly do you want me to fix? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not asking for any fixes on Kuwabara -- it's not a dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

DMX

DMX needs a touch-up. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Then tag it for touching up. I think you rely on this Talk page too much, Sesshomaru.
  • If there's a disagreement among editors on a dab page, the order of engagement should be
    1. the dab page's Talk page
    2. one of the Wikipedia talk pages Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation, WT:MOSDAB, or WT:D
    3. WP:DISPUTE
  • If a dab page needs cleaning up, tag it with {{disambig-cleanup}} or {{hndis-cleanup}} or similar.
  • If you have a specific question about the inclusion, exclusion, formatting on a dab page, you can ask either on WT:MOSDAB or here, but if asking here, please make a new section for the new topic instead of broadening an existing topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Guess I'll use WT:MOSDAB also. And I'll make a new section here from here on. BTW, several times I've asked if I was burdening and only once you replied. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Using the Talk page to talk to me is fine; using it instead of page Talk pages or cleanup tags is inefficient. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Entropy (disambiguation)

Hi, You may like to look at his page when you have time; I guess it typifies "guys who want to disseminate info on the subject" vs "guys trying to clean dab pages". Or am I missing something somewhere? Abtract (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Thanks, watching. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
As am I. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Alternatively it might be considered to reflect "people trying to make wikipedia useful" vs "people following rulebooks unswervingly" :-) WP:IAR has words of wisdom on this subject. Jheald (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I am familiar with WP:IAR. It does not override consensus. Navigational pages, such as disambiguation pages, make Wikipedia useful by showing the reader how to navigate Wikipedia. In this case, by illustrating what the main topic is (the topic at the base name) and what other topic might be sought. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

A thought came to mind

I liked how you put "media" for the character Burdock. Can I do the same for others? Including the 0 guy from Star Trek, listed here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Also on Tien, I want to do some general fixes like replace "franchise" with "media", as it seems more befitting. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh boy, can you share your knowledge at this discussion? Apparently, this editor isn't all too familiar with the dab guidelines. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Bkonrad is another long-timer on dab repair. Formatting titles in dab phrases is a relatively new topic of discussion, though. I've already raised the point on his Talk page. Franchise vs. media, hmm, I think either one is fine when true (a franchise with a single medium should use franchise, a character in many media but with no franchising should use media, but most will fall into both categories). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Guess I'll use "media" per this discussion. From what I interpreted, not everything has a label franchise but simply there exists media. That sound about right? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
J, anything you'd like to reiterate? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Some things have media, some things are franchises, some franchises have media, some things neither are franchises nor have media. There's no rule of thumb here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll get the Dragon Ball updates done soon. Would you object if I changed "0 (Star Trek), a character in the Star Trek universe" to "0 (Star Trek), a character in Star Trek media? This one's at 0. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't revert it, but I think "universe" is better -- 0 is in one novel, not multiple media. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverted edits

Could you please tell me why you reverted my edits to Ex (relationship). That article is a dictionary definition so we shouldn't have it anyways but ex- does not always refer to a relationship, but a status. Please kindly reply on my talk, thanks -- penubag  (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It appeared that you took an article at one title with one subject (an "ex" as a person descriptor) and decided to make a different but similar article with a different but similar title ("ex-" as a prefix). Either can exist, and you are welcome to re-create an article about the prefix at ex-, but if you want to drift the current article to the new one, use the procedure at WP:RM. As for WP:NOT#DICT, an article on the prefix would seem to be more afoul of dictionaryism than one on exes, but that can also be raised and discussed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

MOSDAB rule

In this edit to Zero (disambiguation) you moved the People section to the end, after Other, writing in your edit summary "name holders after others, per WP:MOSDAB". I'm somewhat puzzled by this. Normally one would expect "Other" to be the very last group, a catch-all for what could not otherwise be grouped, and I can't see that this move is an improvement, so I would like to read up on the rationale for the rule, but I can't find any rule in the Manual of Style that suggests that "name holders" should go to the end. Could you point me to the paragraphs(s) describing the applicable rules that motivated this move?  --Lambiam 13:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. It's WP:MOSDAB#Given names or surnames: "... be added below the main disambiguation list", and the reason is that they aren't actual dab entries -- people who happen to have a dab term as their first or last name aren't in danger of having an encyclopedia entry titled with just one of their names. But (in long discussion) we reached the conclusion that short lists wouldn't need to be moved off to their own Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy page. There's more background reading on that decision on some of that project's links and talk. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Of Franz Ferdinand Discussion Pages

Why have these discussion pages been deleted? There are issues that were previously settled that have been raised again. Can the previous discussions be returned?Wardroad (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It's still at Talk:Franz Ferdinand (disambiguation) -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Just APE and List of caricaturists

Perhaps being bold here was an error. Seems Annual premium equivalent and Anomalous photovoltaic effect are also called "APE", or so I read. Thoughts? And is this one a dab or something else? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ape (disambiguation) disambiguates both Ape and APE, so APE should continue to redirect there. List of caricaturists is not a dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You mean all variants, save for the ones here, should target the dab? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
No., I mean that APE should target the dab. Other variants should target the primary usage normally, whatever that is on a case-by-case basis. Was there a particular variant you are concerned about? -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Guess not. Should I bold "APE" in Annual premium equivalent and Anomalous photovoltaic effect as I did here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
If you like. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Baykal

Hi, J! I must admit I was quite perplexed by this revert of yours, not in a small part because it seems very hasty and seems to be off the mark completely. Let me explain, and I would much appreciate your reply on each of the points that follow.

  • First of all, I don't know when was the last time you read WP:IAR, but as a friendly suggestion—it does help to re-read it every once in a while. What that policy states, verbatim, is that if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it (emphasis mine). The practical meaning of the policy is that one can deny a fellow editor a right to invoke IAR if and only if one believes that those fellow editor's edits do not "improve or help maintain Wikipedia". So, the following question stands: do you believe that my edit was not in good faith and thus was not aimed at improving Wikipedia? You do, of course, have the right to question anyone else's actions, mine included, (as per WP:WIARM, among other things) but don't you think a good way to do that would have been by asking me for explanations of how exactly and why I think my edit was aimed at "improvement" and/or "maintenance" instead of hastily reverting it eight minutes after it was made? Do you believe that I would not have provided a thorough explanation of my actions if asked for it?
  • Speaking of explanations, have you noticed that in my edit summary I directed people reviewing the edit not to Gorki, but to the talk:Gorki page? One would have thought that one administrator may give another administrator a benefit of the doubt in assuming that the other party probably knows the difference between a list and a dab page, no? I can only explain it by assuming that the eight minute interval was not enough time to read through the thread I linked to, which, again, brings me to the same question as above: why the hastiness? Why not discuss first shoot later? If you actually read through the Gorki talk page without making it clear in the edit summary, why haven't you questioned whatever points you disagreed with but rather proceeded with a revert? I trust there I provided a very detailed account as to how inclusion of an "other rural localities in Russia" clause on disambiguation (not list!) pages benefits Wikipedia in the long run. Was there something you disagreed on? If so, why not let me know?
  • On hastiness-unrelated note: what's with replacing a direct link to Lake Baikal with a redirect to it through Baykal? "Baikal" is the lake's English name (a fact that can be easily verified by using pretty much any English dictionary); "Baykal" is one of possible romanizations of the Russian word "Байкал", which is the name of the lake as well as of a number of other geographic entities. "Lake Baikal" title thus conforms with WP:UE, but the disambiguation page, as well as any of the geographical non-lake articles, are supposed to be located at "Baykal" because that's a requirement of WP:RUS (all other places called "Байкал" do not have established English names and are thus subject to romanization). There is a very fine line here; one which you crossed without providing any explanations. Referring to the lake as "Baykal" is not incorrect, but it is most certainly not common English usage.

Hope all this makes sense to you. I'd be happy to answer any questions or address any concerns you might have. If you simply made a mistake, or were under stress at the time of making the revert, or if there was some other similar reason, and you don't want to waste time discussing it, I understand and would appreciate if you restored the Baykal dab page to my most recent edit. If that was not the case, I'd appreciate your further feedback on this. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Baykal (disambiguation) is a disambiguation page. The intro para leads with a link to the base name, even if that name is a redirect; that's why Baykal is used. Redlinks aren't used in disambiguation names, but are okay in some list articles (such as lists of ships or lists of place names). Gorki is such a list (or claims to be). Baykal (disambiguation)]] is not; it is an actual disambiguation page. A separate set index list article could be created for listing things that don't have Wikipedia articles yet. I can assume that you are not familiar with the disambiguation page guidelines; in addition to WP:IAR, can I suggest that you read WP:MOSDAB? Oh, and I read the Gorki page (and its talk page) earlier, because it was pointed up in the disambiguation project. It is different, as I said, as a set index article rather than a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I suspected :( Sarcasm and lack of attention is all I got—you haven't even tried to address most of the issues I raised! Let's put it differently:
  • On the subject of linking to Lake Baikal via the Baykal redirect: are you sure you are not "follow[ing] written instructions mindlessly, but rather, [are] consider[ing] how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit"? Because, you know, "Baykal" is not the English name of the lake, but a romanization of the Russian name. Can I now assume you are not familiar with the naming conventions and suggest that you read WP:UE? Or would it be too sarcastic and implying that a fellow admin is incapable of grasping more than one guideline at a time, so it's perfectly OK to talk him down?
  • Are you sure you have read the Gorki talk page carefully? I'd love to believe that you have, but it does not explain why you were unable to see my case for red links and for inclusion of the "other rural localities" sentence as applied to dab pages, which is what most of the discussion on that talk page was about, by the way. Yes, Gorki was in the end converted into a list, but that was a result of a compromise as well as of the fact that it was feasible to do so due to a large number of entries and vacancy of the "Gorki" title. Both are not the case with "Baykal (disambiguation)", which is, of course, a dab page, to which I fully intended to apply WP:IAR based on the arguments supplied on talk:Gorki. I still do intend to invoke IAR, because you have not answered my questions above in a satisfactory manner. Or I could simply jump a bit ahead in my workflow, create a dozen substubs about locations called "Baykal", and list them all on the dab page. That will surely relieve your discomfort about me allegedly being ignorant about MOSDAB, won't it? Of course, that'll mean polluting Wikipedia with a bunch of substandard one-liners, but that this way MOSDAB is followed to the letter is surely the most important thing, right? God forbid someone ignores one of MOSDAB's clauses claiming it was for a good reason—the whole Wikipedia is surely going to go down the toilet then!
Sarcasm aside, I would appreciate your full attention to inquiries of fellow editors in the future—that's one of your duties as an admin anyway. Your directing me to read MOSDAB without addressing concerns which deal primarily with IAR (as applied to MOSDAB) feels rather rude and dismissive. Such attitude is not something one would expect from a guy who prominently displayes an AGF userbox on his user page and is a part of a welcoming committee. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You claimed Baykal (disambiguation) is not a disambiguation page but a set index page, and then proceeded to go into detail about things that would follow. Since your premise was false, it seemed pointless to follow you down the rabbit hole. Baykal (disambiguation) is a disambiguation page; Gorki is currently being treated as a set index article. They're different.
People looking for Lake Baikal won't reach the disambiguation page -- Baikal and Baykal redirect there. So the people you claim to be hurt by not using the normal English name on the disambiguation page aren't going to be affected at all. People looking for other Baykals, however, can tell by the correct intro what the Wikipedia-defined primary topic for the disambiguated term "Baykal" is. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Ahem, pardon me, but would you mind showing me just when exactly it was that I proclaimed Baykal (disambiguation) to be not a disambiguation page but rather a set/list? If I were to claim that it is a set index article, surely I would not have moved it to a title that mentions "disambiguation"?
The problem with the second part (linking to Lake Baikal from the dab page via the "Baykal" redirect) is that "Baykal" is not the English name of the lake, "Baikal" is. I very well understand how it makes sense to refer to the lake as "Baykal" from the MOSDAB point of view (you might be surprised, but I do actually know that guideline in and out, although, when it makes sense, I take a liberty of not following its every letter more often than you do), but in reality in translates to putting a letter of Wikipedia guidelines ahead of correct English usage. I could agree to something like "Lake Baikal (also referred to as Baykal) is a lake in southern Siberia", but referring to the lake as "Baykal" without even mentioning its proper name is simply wrong. That the chances of a reader landing on that dab page when they are searching for the lake are not that high is beyond the point—as encyclopedists we are bound to make sure things are called by their proper names, even if doing so occasionally comes at odds with our other guidelines. Would the sentence above be a reasonable enough compromise to you?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If I might be allowed to intrude: Couldn't this discussion be resolved by simply moving the page back to Baikal (disambiguation)? I understand that it was moved from there in the first place per WP:RUS, although that policy seems to conflict, in this particular case, with WP:COMMONNAME. But more important, WP:RUS, as a part of WP:NAME, applies to the naming of articles, and dab pages aren't articles. It therefore makes complete sense and violates no guidelines to move the dab back to Baikal (disambiguation). Then the redirect using the correct English spelling of the lake would be the correct choice for the introductory line. Regards --ShelfSkewed Talk 15:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:RUS is not in conflict with WP:UCN; in fact, if you read its conventionality clause, you'll see that common English name is always to take precedence (as far as articles are concerned). It also contains a clause dealing specifically with titles of disambiguation pages (see Place names #6), which are supposed to be romanized as it is the most efficient way to achieve standardization and consistency (not to mention the fact that when it comes to romanization of Russian names and to disambiguating between them there very often is no such thing as "common English name" to fall back to in the first place). In fact, if the first line of the dab page is re-written the way I suggested above, all three guidelines (RUS, DAB, and UCN) are going to be satisfied. Moving the dab to Baikal (disambiguation), on the other hand, would break WP:RUS and the spirit of WP:DAB (as the majority of the entries on the page are going to be spelled differently from the dab's title). I realize there is probably no way in which this dab would not be breaking at least one guideline or its part, but if we are trying to break as few rules as possible while still retaining factual correctness, having the dab stay where it is and altering its first line a little is the best compromise I can think of. What are your thoughts?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
So, to briefly recap: Most of the entries on the dab page will be renamed to use the Baykal spelling, therefore Baykal is the term being dabbed and Baykal (disambiguation) would be the correct name for the page. Then I have to agree with JHunterJ's previous reply: "Baikal and Baykal redirect [to Lake Baikal]. So the people you claim to be hurt by not using the normal English name on the disambiguation page aren't going to be affected at all. People looking for other Baykals, however, can tell by the correct intro what the Wikipedia-defined primary topic for the disambiguated term "Baykal" is." That is, the introductory line should begin with Baykal, the term being dabbed, and it should be stated that the term principally refers to the lake. May I suggest, on the model of HP (disambiguation), a small adjustment: "Baykal commonly refers to Lake Baikal in southern Siberia, Russia.. Baykal or Baikal may also refer to:" or something similar? --ShelfSkewed Talk 17:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, since the only thing that matters from the encyclopedic point of view is that the lake is called by its proper name, how exactly it is going to be done is a mere technicality. In other words, I am perfectly fine with your suggestion of using "Baykal commonly refers to Lake Baikal..." in the first line (I believe that a few posts above I suggested exact same solution, only using a slightly different wording, no?).
The only other thing that I wanted to point out is that you can't be so sure that people interested in the lake will "never" see that sentence because both Baykal and Baikal redirect to the article about the lake. It is always possible for a person to land directly on the dab page by using the "random article" feature or, more realistically, by following a search engine link. These may not account for a whole lot of landings, but they are a real possibility that should be taken into consideration when dab pages are being worked on. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Archival

Your actions in renaming the Article Discussion page links and the archives is inappropriate. Please do not add new information, new arguments (or stress a specific viewpoint) to archived sections. Instead. Please create a new argument in the article discussion page which now has a lot of space for you to do so. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I found your titling of my comments inappropriate. Please avoid labeling other users' comments. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I am confused. How did I title your comments? It was a summary, I neutrally (1) described thusly on the Discussion page (so that folk could access the info quickly), and did nothing to alter either the name or meaning of those discussions when I moved them over to archive (2). I certainly did nothing to alter the intent or meaning of your words.
Your action in refactoring both the discussion page (3, 4) and the archive (5, 6) is highly inappropriate, and ever more so considering your status as an admin. You are allowed to voice your opinion in the Discussion page. You are not allowed to refactor the comments of others, section titles that have been archived or the archives themselves. If you have some specific issue that you feel was missed in the material archived, please make a point of bringing it up in discussion anew. It is inappropriate to attempt to "alter history" by changing the names of archived sections, characterizing them in accordance with your personal impressions. If it happens again, further action will have to be taken. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Removed the inappropriately-introduced section header. Take further action as needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you going to even attempt to defend your actions? I was hoping you would focus and explain your edits, please. No one likes taking actions against admins. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I did "defend" them -- an inappropriate header was added to one of my comments. I renamed it to match the content of my comment, and then just removed it to restore the comment in its original context when you objected to that. If it's the fact that it's an archive that's bothering you, I supposed I could undo the move to an archive, make the change, and then re-make the move to an archive, but that seems like a lot of wasted effort. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect. The header that was added to your comments was made well before archival. If you do not choose to address it before archival, that is a case of Too Late. You have avenues of addressing your comments, but you do not get to refactor archives. You do not get to refctor the comments of others. Your comments were untouched. If a section is added that you do not agree with, you need to find a way to get along with that and address it in discussion, not trying to redo history. You're an admin. Start acting more responsible. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
As well, I wanted to inform you that further action was taken at AN/I. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I am unaware of the Wikipedia Policy "Too Late". Pointer? I am also unaware of the prohibition against making maintenance edits to archives, and I did not refactor any comments there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I think herein lies part of the point, J: they weren't "maintenance edits." With respect:
1. You did not add the section header into the article;
2. An amount of time passed between the insertion of that header and the archiving of the older information; and
3. You altered the archive to reflect your point of view in all three archived sections, including removing completely one of the archived sections and their links.
4. The alteration you performed retitled sections as "anti-cruft blinders", a term you (and only you) had used in discussion.
Ergo, they weren't "maintenance edits." I am unsure how I am misinterpreting your actions here, J. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Just Hush and Entropy

How was this? Please let me know if I'm a bother for coming here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Think this was necessary? I also wanted to link Statistical entropy in the place of Entropy (statistical thermodynamics), but I wanted your thoughts beforehand. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Just ATA and Zero (disambiguation)

It's just, what becomes of this entry? Is the mention really there or not? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a semi edit war on how the primary topic should be presented on the Zero dab. Any suggestions? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

Apologies for using your talkpage inappropriately a couple of times recently. It won't happen again. Abtract (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

MGS

What do the guidelines claim about primary names that are spelt differently than the dab's name? See this so you know what I mean. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)