User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 39

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.

Archives

---

05/2006-08/2006
10/2006-04/2007
05/2007-06/2007
06/2007-07/2007
08/2007-09/2007
10/2007-12/2007
01/2008-02/2008
03/2008
04/2008
05/2008-06/2008
07/2008-08/2008
09/2008-11/2008
12/2008-01/2009
02/2009-03/2009
04/2009-05/2009
06/2009-08/2009
09/2009-10/2009
11/2009-12/2009
01/2010-04/2010
05/2010-06/2010
07/2010-10/2010
11/2010-12/2010
01/2011-04/2011
05/2011-08/2011
09/2011-12/2011
01/2012-04/2012
05/2012-06/2012
07/2012-09/2012
10/2012-12/2012
01/2013-02/2013
03/2013-06/2013
07/2013-09/2013
10/2013-12/2013
01/2014-06/2014
07/2014-12/2014
2015
2016–2017
2018

The Torment of Saint Anthony

Another mistaken edit - how you think this meets "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that" is beyond me, given how common this subject is in art. It is more correctly called The Temptation of St. Anthony like most depictions of the subject - this is what it was sold as, and the title of the print it copies. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Given that you left The Torment of Saint Anthony redirecting to this article when you moved it for its supposed ambiguity. If you intend to convert the base name to a disambiguation page, I have no objection to you fixing your earlier mistake by moving it back. Or if you want to fix the other mistakes by using a more correct title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Huh? You appear to be whining that I haven't finished clearing up your mess after about 90 seconds! Of course, The Temptation of St. Anthony has been a disam page for years, and we only need one. Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

No, your move of nearly 10 years ago: 15:19, 17 May 2009 Johnbod (talk | contribs | block) moved page The Torment of Saint Anthony to The Torment of Saint Anthony (Michelangelo) (common subject, needs disaming). But thank you for finally fixing your mistake. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Direwolf listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Direwolf. Since you had some involvement with the Direwolf redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Page moves

Happy 2019! - I had hoped our disagreements would cease ;) - Concerto for unaccompanied harpsichord (Bach) (not a title I would have chosen) is NOT a specific Concerto for unaccompanied harpsichord, as your title suggests. Did you read the article? It is a list of concertos for harpsichord by J. S. Bach. Find a better title, or move it back, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

"Concerto for unaccompanied harpsichord" is better than "Concerto for unaccompanied harpsichord (Bach)", given the lack of ambiguity to disambiguate. There may yet be another better title that also follows guidelines, and you're welcome to find it. Perhaps List of concertos for harpsichord by J. S. Bach? -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I wish we could ask the author. If I knew a better title I'd have suggested it. None of these pieces was called Concerto for harpsichord by its composer. They are placed together because they share characteristics. "Your" title sounds definitely like exactly one specific complsotion to me, so is misleading (and rarely true for any generic name). Want more confusion? The concertos for accompanied harpsichord come as Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

ps: "your" List of concertos for harpsichord by J. S. Bach could be a redirect to that. Typically, a concerto for violin (Violin Concerto) is for violin and orchestra. We need the "unaccompanied" or "solo" to differentiate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

New day, new thought: Concerto for unaccompanied harpsichord would tell me it's an article about that genre/form in general, such as Motet and Cantata. We have Motets (Bach) and Bach cantata, and perhaps could have Concertos for unaccompanied harpsichord (Bach) or Concertos for harpsichord solo (Bach)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

... until someone makes it to List of concertos for unaccompanied harpsichord by Johann Sevastian Bach, - nobody will ever put that in a search ;) - Works (Bach) would be such a great title! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Each of "Concerto for unaccompanied harpsichord" is better than "Concerto for unaccompanied harpsichord (Bach)" sounds just as much like exactly one specific composition, so it isn't "my" title that introduced that issue. "My" title brought the title into line with WP:PRECISION, which is what I do when I discover titles that don't follow that guideline. So, I improved the encyclopedia, and further improvements may be possible, and Wikipedia editors are welcome to make them. You are right, though, that this is a list, so I'll further improve its title by following the list article naming conventions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I moved what you thought improved the encyclopedia, and don't need those general remarks which sound like you think I and others intentionally make the encyclopedia worse. We seem to have a language problem. What in that it is crucial for the article to mention "unaccompanied" or "solo" did you not understand? The normal concertos for harpsichord are those NOT mentioned on the page (but in Keyboard concertos ...). Someone will probably tell you (in addition) that we don't shorten given names in such titles, but I'm not the one. - The move of La donna serpente (opera) was no improvement of the encyclopedia, and I'm not sure about Theresienstadt family camp where two usually clueful editors agreed on the talk that its misleading without more precision. - I recommend that you propose such moves before actually performing them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't need "Find a better title" remarks when you are unwilling to find a better title. The title I "found" was worse than the title I changed it to. I don't need the accusation that "my" title sounded definitely like exactly one specific composition to you when the title I found had exactly the same exactly-one-specific-composition sound to it. I don't need "What part of X did you not understand?" remarks. If you don't need remarks in response to those kinds of remarks, don't make those kinds of remarks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

We do seem to have a language problem, it must be my fault, because English is only a second language; please excuse my lack of nuance. KISS: please assume that established editors named pages for reasons that they may be willing to explain if you ask. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

That is why I stuck to explaining what I did. But when I explained that, you took that to mean that you were intentionally making the encyclopedia worse. Which I don't think and didn't say. Please assume that established editors who are very familiar with disambiguation and article naming conventions move pages for the reasons that they declare in the edit summaries of the moves. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Chimpanzee RM

Hi JHunterJ, the RM you launched at Talk:Chimpanzee really ought to be bundled with the ongoing one at Talk:Common_chimpanzee#Requested_move_22_January_2019. Mind if I close it and add it to the other RM as a multi-move request?--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I see that that RM should have been a multi-move request, since it necessarily involves moving the disambiguation page. However, they are also possibly independent. The primary topic for "chimpanzee" is the common chimpanzee. The RM from the 22nd is about what title should the article for "common chimpanzee" have. If that decides that it should have the title "chimpanzee", great, we're all in agreement. If that decides that it should have the title "common chimpanzee", though, I still request that the disambiguation page be moved, and the RM from today (the 24th) is about what article (or disambiguation page) should the title "Chimpanzee" lead to (as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT if the other RM results in "not moved"). The request from the 6th IMO shouldn't have caught up the disambiguation page in its wake (the dab talk page didn't get a notification until the 22nd), but too late for that. So the Talk:Common_chimpanzee#Requested_move_22_January_2019 proposal should have the suggested disposition of the dab page added as well, but perhaps leave the other going, and if it gets closed as move, at that point the one I opened could be closed as overcome by events? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I think there's a high risk of confusing people. IMO, they should be bundled now, and if it fails, we can open another RM the dab page. But I won't do that if you feel strongly.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

We could revert the recent move of the disambiguation page to the base name, since it was incidental to the RM of the 6th? Then leave the RM of the 22nd unchanged and close the RM of the 24th as moot. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

That could also be a possibility, though still potentially confusing. I'm going to be away from my desktop for awhile but will think about it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Berlin Reinickendorf (electoral district) and others

I see you've moved this and other Berlin electoral districts on the grounds of PRECISION. The problem is that, with the exception of Berlin Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg – Prenzlauer Berg East and Berlin Spandau – Charlottenburg North all of these share their name with Boroughs of Berlin which are more probably more notable than the parliamentary districts (since they organise local services.) I believe greater prevision is warranted here i.e. the old names. Valenciano (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The base names Berlin Reinickendorf et al. were unoccupied when I moved them, hence WP:PRECISION. If you believe the base name would be better served as a redirect elsewhere, I have no objection to the moves being reverted and the base name redirected. As long as the base names aren't empty. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

positions

Hi. I hold a different position and mean no offence when that varies from your own. Please excuse my opposition to those actions that conflict with my own, which, as i see it, are embracing solutions that accommodate a multitude of sourced opinions and assertions. I also recognise that my own position is founded on my own interpretation of policy, which I believe is very cautious and conservative, and being discourteous in the midst of that is is something I prefer to avoid. CC to BD2412 Yours sincerely, cygnis insignis 15:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Point of order

Hi JHunterJ

Just to respond to your most recent point in the now-closed discussion, my comments regarding yourself were not related to our difference of opinion in the RM itself. That is of course normal and fine, and I would expect us to spar in good humour in order to try to come to a consensus, or agree to disagree, as appropriate. What I did find out of order, though, was that both yourself and BD2412 were defending a clear objectively false message to the closer, namely: "As there was no specific consensus for the creation of a disambiguation page at this title, please note that if there is an absence of consensus in this discussion, the page should revert to the status quo ante preceding the creation of the disambiguation page, which was as a redirect". The chimpanzee page has never been a redirect, so that message is incorrect and misleading. I found it very disappointing that you refused to admit that. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, so you conflated me and BD2412. I made no such message and did not defend it, and in fact disagreed with it first.[1] -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, but your immediate response when I challenged BD2412's note to closer was to say "And your note as to what the previous discussion determined is also false". As can be seen from the clarification talk with the closer at User talk:Cuchullain, my note about the close of the previous discussion was entirely correct. I took that and your subsequent comments to mean that you were agreeing with BD2412 on his comment that a redirect was the "default" option, so if that was not the case then we're not in dispute.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I was going on exactly what was written in the close and in the discussion I was participating in, which I was entirely correct about. I didn't read User talk:Cuchullain, so your assumptions based on that are not my fault. See also my discussion with Cuchullain above about that part of the close being incidental to the discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Lord, have mercy

Trying to do something about Lord, have mercy, I saw Lord Have Mercy and Lord, Have Mercy on Us, which I think should be merged. Kyrie means just Lord, with no mercy ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I've done some juggling. See what you think? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Fine. I had to move the Mendelssohn piece, see User talk:Smerus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The Deer's Cry (Pärt)

Similar. I am a bit helpless here, there's The Deer's Cry, and there's Saint Patrick's Breastplate, saying it's know by that name. At least, and I really have no more time for it today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I added a hatnote for the other two meanings. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

If I had more time, I'd make the redirect to the Breastplate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

the princess

Thank you for moving that one before on DYK. Why? looking at the book title, it's styled all lower case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia style is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Titles of works. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you then change accordingly? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I changed to to conform to Wikipedia style. Lowercase "in", initial caps for the other words. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I mean in the article, or shoulcd I do it for you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe I did, but if I missed any, certainly. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I did it for you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I typoed one! And the lede at that. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You don't have to follow the guidelines exactly.

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

I believe this is just one of those common sense exceptions. Its best to mention the book first, then the three films based on it. Dream Focus 15:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Understood. OTOH, I believe it isn't. And so the exception should be brought up on the talk page. Note also that before bringing it in line with the guidelines, the novel was in the "See also" section. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Three songs

Is Three Songs a valid title? It is nothing unique. Why should the same thing in French be different? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

When there's a second topic for the same thing in French on English Wikipedia, we can move it back. WP:PRECISION.-- JHunterJ (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I moved it back and made it a redirect to 3 Songs, which also has several Drei Lieder and Tres canciones. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for withdrawing, even if it's for the wrong reason. When will you see that 3 Chansons (4 Motets, 5 Minuets) is never a good title for a specific work unless the rare case of a primary topic? I can't think of a single one right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Again

I seem to speak a different language. The redirect from "Jauchzet dem Herren, alle Welt" exists for one reason: you, to prevent you doing what you did for the Trois Chanson. It is also the incipit of Reger's much larher composition, and many others. A reader arriving at Psalm 100 can find Mandelssohn in the lead. A hatnote for his but not the much larger is nonsense. I'm busy, and away for vacation from tomorrow, so won't do anything. I should be happy about the extra attention for the composition on the Main page, but really: Reger's Der 100. Psalm is the only one deserving that place, and a primary topic no doubt. Whatever would go on a dab page for beginnings of the psalm in various languages - one of the most frequently set at all, just look at all the Jubilate - is in the section Musical settings on the psalms article, - why duplicate? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I keep explaining the need for reader navigation. Thank you for creating the redirect, which did indeed "prevent me" from fixing the type of problem you keep creating, which is creating a qualified title when nothing exists at the unqualified title. This, however, was a different problem you created: given that "Jauchzet dem Herren, alle Welt" would be the correct title for the Mendelssohn work and just needs a qualification because it's not the primary topic, now you need a navigational hatnote from the unqualified title for readers trying to reach the Mendelssohn article. If there were more than one such other article, then a dab page could be created and linked from the unqualified title article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

There's also "Jauchzet..." by Schütz, - just that we have no articles YET. Generally: when there is a text which several composers set to music, the undabbed article should go to the text, not to one of the compositions based on it. When I arrived at Wikipedia, Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme was a cantata by Bach. However, it's a hymn by Nicolai, on which other pieces are based, including that cantata. The mistake to confuse the two is so common that even (then) featured article candidate Messiah claimed that what Handel quoted was by Bach (not Nicolai). It takes patience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The mistake is thinking that things that are YET to happen must be addressed NOW. WHEN things change in Wikipedia, THEN Wikipedia will change to handle them. It is an excellent system, and well addressed by WP:PRECISION, WP:HN, and WP:D. We have no article YET on a hypothetical playwright named William Shakespeare who might be born in 2050, but we are not going to move William Shakespeare to William Shakespeare (playwright born 1564) just to handle that case. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Nice comparison, but not to our point. The Bach cantatas followed what you want, first thing under a name gets that name, and project Classical music discussed in 2010 that it is nonsense to have the derived work without dab, and giving a dab to first thing. A 2050 Shakespeare would never be primary topic ;) When you have a Bach chorale cantata, you know that there's a chorale on which it is based, nothing hypothetical. - We do have articles which discuss a poem and its primary setting, mentioning other settings which will probably get no article, see Traum durch die Dämmerung. More common: Locus iste, the text, and Locus iste (Bruckner), a famous setting, one among others. Psalm 100 exists in many settings in various languages, as the article explains. I wouldn't want different dab pages for the individual languages. Food for thought? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS : WP:Classical music can't override the WP:AT policy, including WP:PRECISION. You are very knowledgeable about the contents of classical music articles. I happen to be very knowledgeable about Wikipedia navigation by disambiguation pages and hatnotes. Sometimes articles are arranged one way, and sometimes another, sometimes disambiguation pages cover slight variations in titling, and sometimes different disambiguation pages are used for slight variations in titling. The goal for disambiguation pages and hatnotes is getting the reader to their sought article as efficiently as possible. In most cases, we use different disambiguation pages for the "same" title in different languages, because the topics sought by readers searching for a title in French is is most cases a different set than the topics sought by readers searching for a title in English. So yes, we want different dab pages for individual languages, because it serves the reader (not the topic article editors) better. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

In how many languages do you suggest dab pages for Psalm 100, which is just one of 150 psalms? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

In how many variations do we have ambiguity for it on English Wikipedia? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know, but I know at least Latin - English - German, and I know that it's the same content, just different translations. Therefore, I'd just redirect them to that content Psalm 100, as I did. Much more flexible than creating a Spanish dab when the second Spanish works comes, and a Finnish ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Psalm 100 isn't a dab page. What are the ambiguous topics on English Wikipedia for the Latin name of Psalm 100, other than Psalm 100? For its Spanish name? For its German name? -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I see that Der 100. Psalm doesn't redirect to Psalm 100 and doesn't have a needless qualifier appended to its title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

German for Psalm 100 is de:Psalm 100, while Der 100. Psalm is a specific unique composition by Reger. I admit to have hesitated when I named it ;) - No Spanish article for the Psalm, surprise, but French, would be "Servez l’Éternel, avec joie". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Figaro lässt sich scheiden

Figaro lässt sich scheiden was (until I just moved it because the "ss" spelling is not historic, and not in the source) the title of an opera, created in 2007. In German the same is the title of the play on which the opera is based, de:Figaro lässt sich scheiden. (Note there that the page name is with "ss" while the title in the infobox is correct with "ß" - 1963 orthography when it was premiered.) What will we do if an English article about the play is created, and a German title about the opera? The simple rule "whatever is created first gets no disambiguation" leads to confusion again, if you ask me. I'd have prefered the derived opera with a dab "(opera)" from the start. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Valid options:

1. The current arrangement:
   • No article about the play
   • The article about the opera at Figaro läßt sich scheiden
   • The redirect from Figaro lässt sich scheiden to the article on the opera
2. New article, no primary topic for either orthography:
   • New article is created at either Figaro läßt sich scheiden (play) or Figaro lässt sich scheiden (play), and the other title redirects to it
   • Article about the opera is then moved to Figaro läßt sich scheiden (opera)
   • Disambiguation page is then created at Figaro läßt sich scheiden
3. New article, but the opera is the primary topic:
   • New article is created at either Figaro läßt sich scheiden (play) or Figaro lässt sich scheiden (play), and the other title redirects to it
   • Hatnote added to Figaro läßt sich scheiden pointing to the play
4. New article, and it is the primary topic:
   • Opera article moved to Figaro läßt sich scheiden (opera)
   • New article is created at either Figaro läßt sich scheiden or Figaro lässt sich scheiden, and the other title redirects to it
   • Hatnote on that new article pointing to the opera

Invalid option:

1. "disambiguate" the article about the opera on English Wikipedia before ambiguity exists on English Wikipedia

-- JHunterJ (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your view. I have problems with the concept of primary topic, - who decides on which standards? It seems so much easier to say that the original work (here the play) needs no dab, while the derived one gets one. I KNOW that Wikipedia doesn't work like that, so some singer who called himself after a famous composer ("derived" if ever there was such a thing) makes that composer need a dab. Made me sick when it happened. People are used to just use surnames for famous composers such as Bach and Beethoven. Try that for Humperdinck. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

See also The Godfather (derived work is primary), Gone with the Wind (no primary). People have tried to get Franz Ferdinand (band) and Muse (band) into the primary slots, happily without success, although Madonna is a disambiguation page rather than a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Mary, mother of God. Consensus decides (often with input from the readership by means of measurements of page hits). -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

You didn't say what you think of the Humperdinck case. I wish they had tried "happily without success", one singer seems not much different from a band in the context. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Engelbert Humperdinck (composer)#Requested move (revisited) seems adequately considered. Humperdinck does not have the same "cultural literacy" base as Bach or even Franz Ferdinand. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Imagine someone took your name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone has. Or I have someone's name, in any event. But in Humperdinck's case, the person you're asking me to imagine being is also dead, which I imagine overshadows any name envy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The person is dead and can't complain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Hearts RM close

Your RM close stated there "was no clear consensus whether to move the hearts disambiguation page to the base name", so I have to ask, why did you move it there? There was no need. It should have stayed at Hearts (disambiguation) and Hearts could have simply stayed as a leftover redirect to the Hearts (card game) page. You moving the DAB, despite lack of consensus, seems more like a WP:SUPERVOTE, especially given that you immediately opened up another RM with that as your stated preference.

Please revert this move of the DAB, and withdraw your new RM as undiscussed/no consensus. Leave future handling to the community. -- Netoholic @ 16:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The consensus was that the card game was not the primary topic for "hearts", so it can't continue to be the primary topic for "hearts". See WP:PRECISION as well. There was no WP:SUPERVOTE, and actually reading my preference you will find that it is for not merging the dabs, and has no preference for whether the primary topic for "hearts" is Heart or nothing (landing on the disambiguation page). -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The SUPERVOTE was in moving the DAB to the base name, even after admitting in the close that there was no consensus for that. This sets up the wrong status quo result in the new RM, since a no-consensus in the 2nd RM to move it back to its original location means it stays at primary. That goes against WP:THREEOUTCOMES in regard to the location of the DAB page. -- Netoholic @ 18:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

There was a consensus against the card game being primary but no clear consensus if the organ was primary so indeed the correct thing to do was put the DAB at the base name. Keeping the situation as it was makes no sense since it was clear that there was consensus against the card game being primary, that's not a super vote in any way. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

(ec) There was no clear consensus between the possibilities. Three commenters were in favor of what I ended up using as a stopgap, and two were in favor of redirecting to Heart. There was no possible "status quo" result, since the clear consensus was that the card game was not the primary topic for the title "Hearts". -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The status quo result was to leave the leftover redirect from Hearts→Hearts (card game). -- Netoholic @ 18:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Contrary to WP:PRECISION, so not a viable option. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

But as you favour the organ as primary, the DAB at the base name is a step closer to that that just keeping "Hearts" redirecting to the card game which doesn't make sense if the card game isn't primary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Issues of WP:PRECISION and WP:MALPLACED can be handled via other means - they do not have to be settled by your preference as part of an RM close. Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions does not say that you, as closer, must find a resolution to these issues yourself, immediately. Just close the portions of the RM according to WP:THREEOUTCOMES, and leave the rest for other, future processes and discussions. -- Netoholic @ 18:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I partially settled and partially relisted the RM based on the discussion there and Wikipedia policies (which include WP:PRECISION) and guidelines (which include WP:MALPLACED). You're welcome to continue to ignore my answers, but I'm done repeating them for you. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

That isn't JHJ's preferences its our standard practices, the fact that we're even debating which topic is primary for "Hearts" is a good sign that none is primary and the DAB should be at the base name. Per WP:THREEOUTCOMES there was a clear consensus that the card game wasn't primary so moving that was required and seeing if a different article is primary can be dealt with later (hence the new RM). Generally by default there is no PT and the DAB is at the base name unless a topic can be shown to be primary which wasn't the case here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Move review for Hearts (disambiguation)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Hearts (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 @ 18:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion

Hi. A conflict has arisen on the Adam Hughes article. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Verticordia rutilastra

Hello JHunterJ,

Thanks for your interest in V. rutilastra. It is one of about one hundred species of Verticordia (and, of course, about ten thousand other flowering plant species) found in the south-west of Western Australia, and nowhere else in the world. Three species (V. cunninghamii, V. verticillata and V. decussata only occur in the Northern Territory or the Kimberley and a few have a range that extends beyond the south-west. The majority, however, only occur in this biodiversity hotspot. The south-west of W.A. (which I have linked to either "Southwest Australia (ecoregion)" or to "South West, Western Australia") extends from about Geraldton in the north-west to Esperance in the south-east. If you have not had the chance to visit, it is highly recommended if you are interested in plants. My best wishes to you. Gderrin (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay - so will you be making the same change to the other 98 verticordia, 200-odd melaleuca, 350-odd orchid, 50-odd eremophila and many other Wikipedia articles that have "south-west of Western Australia" as the V. rutilastra article had a couple of days ago? Interestingly, none of my sources has "Southwest Australia" and certainly would not have it capitalised since "southwest" is a common noun. Elizabeth George's Verticordia monograph has "the south-west corner of Western Australia", Robert Chinnock's monograph, Eremophila and related genera has "the south-western portion of Western Australia", Lyndley Craven's Melaleuca monograph has "the south-western region of Western Australia" and Stephen Hopper's Field Guide to the Orchids of Western Australia has "the flora of southwest Western Australia". (A typical journal article with "south-west Western Australia".) I'm working on Eucalyptus species at the moment, many of which occur in the south-west of Western Australia. Will you be changing them too? Just curious. Gderrin (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

References

If you're objecting to an improvement on an article because other articles need the same improvement, note that Wikipedia is a volunteer thing and incremental improvements are acceptable and encouraged. Hopefully you understand the improvement being made that avoids a link that looks like "south-west" not landing on south-west but rather Southwest Australia (ecoregion). But ultimately, yes, I will likely be changing others as I encounter them, but the encounters won't happen on assignment from other volunteers. If you'd like for them to be consistently improved, you're of course welcome to do so, and if you'd like assistance, to create a list or project or bot or something. I'd probably collaborate in the processing such a list. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

References

This requires discussion, not an immediate dismissal and invitation to enforce your decision or reaction. cygnis insignis 14:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Chimp

Please do not revert again. Chimp is short for chimpanzee and should redirect there. The other links on the disambiguation are named after the animal anyway. People who will time "chimp" in search are looking for the animal. LittleJerry (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Please brush up on WP:OWN, WP:CUTPASTE, and WP:CONSENSUS, and then use WP:RM to request the move of the disambiguation page from the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and of course WP:BRD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Creation of stub page for "Somdip Dey"

Hello JHunterJ,

I am trying to create a stub page for "Somdip Dey". Since you are a reputed Wikipedian, I was hoping if you could help me to create the page for Somdip Dey.

Somdip Dey is an Embedded AI scientist at the University of Essex and the Samsung R&D Institute UK. Somdip's research focus is on making Artificial Intelligence accessible to developing countries.

References:

1. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/desires-of-a-modern-indian/overseas-indian-scientist-on-a-mission-to-make-artificial-intelligence-accessible-to-developing-countries/

2. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/desires-of-a-modern-indian/three-important-tips-to-manage-successful-artificial-intelligence-projects/

3. https://thriveglobal.com/stories/big-ideas-use-ai-blockchain-and-edge-computing-to-reduce-food-waste-and-stabilize-world-hungerwith-somdip-dey/

4. https://coinrivet.com/dangers-of-keyloggers-in-cryptocurrency/

5. https://www.cmswire.com/information-management/how-to-map-out-a-successful-artificial-intelligence-strategy/

6. https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/a25752707/celebrity-apps-kim-kardashian-taylor-swift/

7. https://thefrisky.com/this-man-developed-a-technology-to-make-students-life-easy-after-graduation/

8. https://www.shefinds.com/collections/how-often-replace-android-phone/

9. https://zety.com/blog/c-sharp-interview-questions

10. https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/wikininjas/2019/02/11/interview-with-a-technet-wiki-ninja-and-c-expert-somdip-dey/

With Regards, Essex PR Essex PR (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC) Essex PR

Check out Wikipedia:Your first article#Still need help? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

"Original research"

"original research" does NOT mean "something I never heard before". I know you are probably incorrigible and set in your ways, but I would seriously ask you never to use the term without at least taking a few seconds to do a google search to see if you are wrong again. Who knows, you might even want to add a reference yourself! Your ability to detect "trivia" is equally low, so I'd be cautious about that too. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I know you are probably incorrigible and set in your ways, but I didn't use WP:OR in any way that it isn't being used there. By all means, continue to improve the citations that had improvement requested back in 2015. I'm happy to have been able to spur this improvement to the encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Also sprach Zarathustra (disambiguation)

In Talk:Also sprach Zarathustra (disambiguation)#Requested move 24 April 2019, there were 6 opinions that strongly believed the Nietzsche work to not be the primary topic and only 1 opposed, so I think more opportunity should have been given for people to align on a common solution since there is clearly consensus for change. For example, pinging the people who opposed the original proposal and supported the alt to see if they would prefer the original proposal (as a compromise) over the current situation if they had to choose between the two, as well as pinging the people who supported the original proposal and did not give an opinion on the alt. And if it's a mere technicality of Also sprach Zarathustra (Strauss) not being tagged, then tagging it and relisting for another week would be the right way forward. I urge you to reopen and relist the discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Which would be identical to RMing Also sprach Zarathustra (Strauss) directly, only not as clean-cut, since the proposed move could closed out and left off the new discussion. Which is what I suggest. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I missed the whole thing, but would be strongly opposed to Also sprach Zarathustra being Strauss, while it's a derived work, and the original is by Nietzsche, - it would mean crediting the wrong person with this work. We just had a move discussion for Der geteilte Himmel. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 03:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z152

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z83

Nineteen-E

"I hope you realise WP:PRECISION"

I hope you realize every article on a tropical depression has the year in it. Every time the Eastern Pacific reaches the 19th name, it is TD Nineteen-E. This has occurred many times, so years are necessary to differentiate between them. Noah^Talk 10:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I hope you realize WP:PRECISION. When there's ambiguity on Wikipedia, then Wikipedia disambiguates the title. Not before. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Hurricane Noah, this is a religious belief. Look above and in the archives. What I learned to do is make the dab page before the special thing. Example Trois Chansons, how would that ever be a precise unique name? But until the argument was over, that was the name for Ravel's composition, believe it or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You have a religious belief against the consensus WP:PRECISION? But yes, if you're introducing ambiguity to Wikipedia, that's the time to disambiguate it. So we're in agreement with that learning. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I have seen nonsense like described above in the name of Precision, and I think if you avoid repeats of nonsense, and I take care to know in advance to watch out, I will not have to return. As soon as I saw your move of the storm, however, I felt it coming ;) - I have a belief in the quality checking of the Featured article process, and if an article title has survived that, there's probably a reason. How about next time find out the reason before you move a featured article? - There are ideas such as sequences of storms / sonatas / you name it, which call for a unified approach rather than a precision (and precision only) simple handling without context. I still remember the (unpleasant 2012) discussion about the title of the Moonlight Sonata, which would be so nice and precise, but defies the pattern of Beethoven's piano sonatas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, I have a belief in the project's policies. How about you suggest the change you think should be made to the policy that WP:PRECISION is a part of before you act like it's a religious belief of mine. The idea that the pursuit of the unified approach only rather than precision is addressed there: "when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. For example, it would be redundant to title an article "Queen (rock band)", as Queen (band) is precise enough to distinguish the rock band from other uses of the term "Queen". This may lead to some acceptable inconsistency; for instance, the article on chickens is found at Chicken, but the article on turkeys is at Turkey (bird) to disambiguate it from the country Turkey". -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not at all into writing policy, not only because English isn't my native tongue, also because of my wide IAR attitude. Your last examples are all fine with me, but 3 Chansons, which isn't any more unique than general Chansons, just wasn't. - Can we leave it at: when you find a title not ok per precision, you ask why that is before you move, and the higher the reviewed quality level of an article the more important? There's a reason behind a move protection for featured content when on the Main page, and we should handle it with care even when not on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

We can leave it at: when a page is moved per precision (or other policy), we then discuss why WP:IAR should be applied instead. WP:IAR is applied with consensus, not individual attitude. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I have learned to check the "Tomorrow" and "Day after tomorrow" pages, and follow the DYK queue pages to try and catch them before they are on the main page though. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You arent supposed to make potentially controversial page moves without discussion. Multiple people have expressed their opposition to your page move. WP:PRECISION does not apply here as there have been numerous TD 19-E's over the years. For example, Olaf in 2015 started as TD 19-E and ended up becoming a Cat 4 hurricane. Nobody else has had a problem with having the year on this storm or the others that have gone through the FAC process. Please move it back to its original title. Noah^Talk 15:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Why doesn't WP:PRECISION apply here? Where was that WP:IAR discussed? -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It doesnt apply because there are plenty other storms that were also Nineteen-E over the years. Considering every other TD article has the year in the title, you should have known to have not moved this one without discussion. You should honestly move this back and then have a discussion about moving all of them if you think it is wrong. Noah^Talk 15:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, thanks for the edits you made to El Drago Milenario and Parque del Drago last night. Please accept my apologies for the blanket reverts, yesterday was a long day and I should have logged off Wikipedia earlier. With the galleries - I'm not a fan of them, as their existence tends to mean that the article has too many images in it, so thanks for removing them from the last edit. With the travel info, I think it's useful to include the past and present entrance info to show how it's changed over time, unfortunately I can't easily find the past info here so I just added the current info and will wait for it to change in the future. ;-) I hope that makes sense, and apologies again for the blanket reverts! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank, Mike Peel. The hours of operation and admissions charge are still not encyclopedic, and I don't think "how it's changed over time" is either, unless there's some WP:RS that treats the change over time as a topic to cover. Please see WP:NOTGUIDE, which covers this and uses prices as a specific example. But also see https://wikitravel.org for an appropriate place for that information. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I've read that guide - it talks about not including "the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées" - but nothing about entrance fees or opening hours? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk)`

There's nothing encyclopedic about hours of operation or entrance fees. Per WP:NOTGUIDE. You boldly added the information. Its addition was reverted. If you still disagree, build consensus on the talk page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Broken formatting

Though it's likely unintentional, your edit on Kuria people caused severe damage to the formatting of multiple tables and lists in the article. I can't revert your edit, because that would undo the various pieces of content you adjusted and added.

I'll try to do what I can to reverse the harm done, but please be more careful in the future. Wsan2 (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Reflist jiggery pokery

You wrote "let the reflist handle columning". How does it do that? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

When it gets "enough" bullets, it auto-columns them. And I think "enough" varies based on the reader's display. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

See Template:Reflist#Columns. There are specific cases where overriding the auto is useful, but typically the auto columning handles it well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem I think is while it probably works well for established articles, which are generally over-long and under-sourced, for something new like Lees of Scotland, which for a new article and DYK nomination has to be well sourced, it results in the citations taking up about a third of the article space. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Why is that a problem, since they're after the content? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, because the references are a list of short lines, they contain more space than the prose, which focuses a reader's attention on the wrong thing. It's the same reason why magazines will put quote boxes in order to break up the flow of a piece (see here). Having said that, it's a "problem" in the same way that I don't have any jam to put on my toast tomorrow morning is a "problem" ie: it's very mildly irritating, but not enough to bother doing anything about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

And it seems to be a problem of preference, at least in the template talk archives for reflist. Which is why the automatic behavior is for single column for fewer than 10 references (or 10 or fewer, whichever way). I find the "too-short" columns more jarring. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Mark Jackson move

I just want to point out that the votes at Talk:Mark Jackson#Requested move 15 May 2019 are not evenly split – 5 were against and 4 were for. I thought about writing there but since the discussion is already closed I am writing directly to the person who made the move, which is you. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I assume the requester is for as well, so a simple count of 5-5. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Good catch. I completely forgot about the requester. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

As an opposer I feel like that was not the right call and it should have been a “no consensus.” For names as common as “Mark Jackson” it seems like just looking at page views is not the right call, because these can shift wildly over time (see the recent move of Kevin Johnson to a DAB - by the same requestor as this page move no less - because they had shifted when at one time the basketball player had been the dominant pageview for the title). With common names there is going to be flux so it seems like there should be some lasting notability, which is absent for Mark Jackson. It seems like for common names like this (10+ notable entries), both criteria of wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC should be met - it’s a different scenario than if there are just a couple of subjects with the same name. I’d ask this move be relisted rather than close it - I think the opposers were not treated fairly and those voting in favor didn’t have an ironclad argument, as I’d expect with a split decision being decided on policy grounds. Rikster2 (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The opposes with policy-based reasons were in the minority though. The policy-based grounds were the basis of the decision. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I also ask that you reconsider the close rationale. It mentioned "policy-and-guideline based reasons", but guideline WP:PRIMARYTOPIC lists as one criteria: A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. I believe most opposers, even if some implicitly, are referring to this.—Bagumba (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

But none of the topics met that criterion, so it was not a factor. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

If WP:PRIMARYTOPIC said that either page views or long-term significance was sufficient, I would see your point. However, it says that ... Wikipedia has no single criterion for defining a primary topic, two major aspects that editors commonly consider are these ... My interpretation is that it's up to the !voters to weigh those (or any other) criteria. The guideline doesn't dictate that one criteria is sufficient; it's up to the participants to judge. Typically, I !vote that long-term significance is required, and use page views as a tie breaker. Others are free to use their own criteria. I don't think the closing should place more weight into one criteria—page views in this case—and discount the 50% of voters that opposed based on significance of the subject. Thanks for your consideration.—Bagumba (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

More weight was not placed on either criterion. Both criteria were considered in the discussion, one ended up not being a factor. The criterion isn't "only topics with long term significance can possibly be primary topic". -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Neither is the criteria "only topics with the largest page views can possibly be primary topic". I do not see anything in PRIMARYTOPIC which encourages the close to conclude that "one ended up not being a factor", when the opposes's are within the guidelines to argue that significance is a factor, especially when it's an example criteria in the guideline itself. I see this more as a "no consensus" to change a long-standing title. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

This is why I think you should have let the discussion continue. For subjects with 10+ entries there will always be more notable folks coming along. The basketball player is a current announcer so it doesn’t shock me he has the most page views in 2019. It’s not required that a page meets both criteria in PRIMARYTOPIC but the discussion is supposed to suss out these issues. Rikster2 (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd be OK with that too, and JHunterJ could !vote too.—Bagumba (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)