User talk:Roman Spinner/Archive 4 (2012 and 2013)

Dodesukaden

Just a quick note - your edit summary (though it is over two years ago) gives the change to Dodes'ka-den as "while Dodesukaden is a transliteration of the Japanese title"

Transliteration means "translated literally" - The film's title was first Dodesukaden, the UK and USA title may well have been Dodes'ka-den, but the English transliteration was Clickety-clack. There is also an issue that the DVD and Bluray boxes I have seen seem to have it as Dodes'kaden (corrected 10 March). Chaosdruid (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contacting me regarding transliteration, a subject which, as you've probably noticed, in addition to having its own article (Transliteration) is frequently discussed on the talk pages of Wikipedia articles and occasionally becomes heatedly contentious. In the years you've edited Wikipedia, you would have seen them in such venues as, for instance, Wikipedia talk:Romanization and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names), while you must have reviewed the relevant guidelines at Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Foreign names and anglicization and, for our purposes, at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Determining common usage.

Since, in transliterating, the attempt is to transform letters of the alphabet, or words, into corresponding characters in the Latin alphabet and, more specifically, characters corresponding to their usage in the English-speaking world, transliteration cannot be exact and thus Dodesukaden, Dodes'kaden, Dodes'ka-den are all sufficiently close in pronunciation as to be considered correctly transliterated. However, since all English-language film guides as well as the definitive Criterion DVD edition have apparently settled on Dodes'ka-den, I moved, in January 2010, as you pointed out, the then-main title header Dodesukaden to the one in most general usage, Dodes'ka-den. Translation of the Japanese-language title into the English language was not yet part of the article in January 2010, but there was, and still is, within the article, an explanation which indicates that the title represents a sound so, perhaps, that was deemed to be sufficient. I am ready to discuss the matter further should you so wish.—Roman Spinner (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in how transliteration works though. While I appreciate there is a general misuse of the word, transliteration seems almost impossible to me in non-European based languages. It does seem a little bizarre that some of the Japanese film titles would end up so far from their translated meaning - For example Ran:

It appears that the transliteration is Ran, which may have had a remarkable effect on Google's translation engine. You may be aware that Google uses a method of translation which relies upon other peoples translations. For example, if there are 100 translations of "Shfoomalppy" -> "Weird" (90) "Strange" (10); Google translations will use "Weird". Ran seems to be affecting translation engines, some of which give "Ran" as the translation of the Japanese "Ran" (乱).

I have found a large range of translations, meaning that it is somewhere in the region of: n. uprising, rebellion, war or revolt; v. be disturbed, be disordered or be confused. Unfortunately it would seem that Japanese translation engines are not very reliable at agreeing presently (unless you know of an authorative one?). Chaosdruid (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the orthography of, for instance, such inscrutable-seeming word/letter representations as those used in Chinese, Arabic, Persian or Hebrew, but it would seem logical that any language would try to match the sound of a spoken syllable and attempt to recreate it, to the best of its capability, in its own native script. General interest publications occasionally take up the subject, usually during high-profile travels by world leaders ("To the Chinese media, is Obama "aobama" or "oubama"?" {with 21 comments} or a slightly different version of this article at LiVEJOURNAL with 19 other comments).

I agree that Ran has the potential of causing somewhat greater confusion than other well-known Eastern film titles such as Pather Panchali, Aparajito or Ju Dou, since "ran" is a very common English word and the Japanese title is apparently meant to be pronounced "RAHN", rather than "REHN", but this short, snappy title is the only one by which this film is known in the English-speaking world and, according to the 21 interwiki links appended to the Ran article, this title remains unchanged throughout the world, although it is most likely referenced by some variation, such as Kurosawa's Ran. As to the precise English-language translation of Ran, there probably is no single word which will satisfy those who understand its Japanese use and insist that, as in the manner of other foreign terms, such as Weltschmerz, the meaning should be contained in a phrase. There is, again, more to the subject, but any additional comments may be left for future postings.—Roman Spinner (talk) 05:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. When you recently edited Bushra Ansari, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amanat Ali (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link to Amanat Ali had existed prior to my edit, but while making revisions, I accidentally deleted the disambiguating qualifier {Amanat Ali (singer)}, which I have now restored.—Roman Spinner (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ishpeming

Please see WP:USPLACE, which states that only US cities on the AP list that are their primary topics can go without the state name. Ishpeming is not on that list, so it needs to be moved back. Imzadi 1979 → 04:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I just wanted to clarify why some of your moves on these US cities are being reverted: WP:USPLACE has historically been heavily debated as to which cities get the state modifier, and which do not. For example, there is a whole page of archived discussions here dating back to 2006. And the last time it was heavily debated was an RFC archived here. The so-called "AP Stylebook" rule is the current compromise. Since the AP Stylebook says that Boston, Cleveland, Dallas, Detroit, Minneapolis, San Francisco and Seattle do not need the state modifier, those respective Wikipedia article names do not have it either. On the other hand, Ishpeming, Carson City and Fort Worth are not on the AP Stylebook's list, so those articles normally have the state in their titles.

And yes, the subject of moving some of those article like Carson City and Fort Worth over their redirects, to fully comply with the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, was discussed in that last debate but there apparently was no consensus to do so.

And also yes, IMO it is not the best compromise, but there is segment of American Wikipedians who would rather have all articles on US settlements have the "city, state" convention, like what the US Post Office and some other federal government agencies normally use. And so it was decided to follow a reliable source like the AP Stylebook instead. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome your kind postings regarding the proper use of guidelines at WP:USPLACE and, of course, barring any revision in the consensus which has remained unchanged for at least half of Wikipedia's current lifespan, the plurality/majority view (and the stylebook) must be respected. Had I considered the changes before making them or solicited views on the subject, the matter could have been avoided. If/when any future discussions on this topic are instigated, I will participate but, for the present, since the three place name changes have been undone with little fuss, at least my misstep is corrected. Once again, my appreciation for your well-presented and detailed explanation.—Roman Spinner (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Au revoir les enfants

Hello Roman. I declined your proposed speedy of the redirect, since the current title was reached due to a move discussion in December 2010, at Talk:Au revoir les enfants#Requested move: Au revoir les enfants (no comma). I was the closing admin for that discussion. If you believe that the capitalized version is better, you should open a new move discussion. It is clear that the film is promoted using lower case in French. The question is how to do it in English, and the guidance of our own manual of style should be preferred. Our manual covers the topic at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (France & French-related)#Works of art. It recommends there that we should follow the capitalization rules of the French Wikipedia. The relevant parts are:

"If it is more well known by its title in French, then French should be maintained (with redirects from the English title)."
"if the title is a sentence, only the first letter and proper nouns are capitalized (e.g. fr:La vie est un long fleuve tranquille)"

According to our style page, we should follow the lead of the French Wikipedia's rules even when they disagree with how the film is marketed in English.

"Titles which adhere to these rules may however differ from the actual form of capitalization adopted by the author, the cover's graphic artist, or the publishing house."

If you still believe that the film should be in upper case, consider opening a new move discussion at Talk:Au revoir les enfants. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you, Ed and welcome your most helpful and detailed explanation. I understood the December submission to be limited to the deletion of the comma in the title and not intended to expand into de-capitalization of its verb and noun. Inasmuch as it did so expand, I feel that a revived discussion would, indeed, be in order so that users may re-articulate, express more fully and clarify the arguments raised in the previous discussion on the wider implications of this topic at Talk:La Strada#Upper or lower case. Suffice it to say that since films are, indisputably, works of art, one may ask to what degree is it fair, if at all, to request that films receive an orthographic derogation from other works of art or that the orthography of French film titles be derogated from the naming strictures generally applied to original titles imported from Spanish, Italian or other national cinemas. All of these matters were examined at length in the La Strada discussion and, doubtless, will be discussed at length again. I would gladly receive such a discussion and appreciate your suggestion that it be initiated—Roman Spinner (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Brown (disambiguation)

Hello, Roman Spinner. First I'd like to thank you for all the hard work you do on WP, especially the area I mainly work in, dabs. However, over the years I'd changed much of your work and seen much of it tagged for clean-up, and I should have messaged you earlier to let you know why, in case you weren't watching the pages. MOS:D#Individual entries states that: The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary. You spend a lot of time adding detailed bios to go with the entry, but nearly all of these get deleted over time, because they make it hard to see the woods for the trees, and it takes ages to find the right entry. Again, thanks for your hard work. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was most considerate of you, Boleyn, to devote the time for composing such a thoughtful communication regarding my most recent disambiguation effort and I thank you for it. A small number of editors have contacted me over the years to comment on this subject and I always gladly welcome such feedback. In fact, I mentioned to User:Jwy when he posted in January 2008, above, at User talk:Roman Spinner#Disambiguation page descriptions, that I feel we would not devote so much time (nearly every day since January 22, 2006, in my case) and intellectual, as well as physical, energy to this great project if we did not deeply feel the desire to advance the pursuit of knowledge. In light of your own years of dedication to the project, I regret any difficulties which may have been encountered in reading and/or navigating through my disambiguation listings. I am well aware of the guideline referencing the brevity of each entry, and I measure them, one by one, so that none would exceed a single line of text as it is seen in Times New Roman (no relation) typeface on a 16x9 screen. I realize many other screens employ various ranges of sizing and formatting, but such unavoidable discrepancies would, of course, be evident in the context of all entries under any circumstances. In view of the increased number of names within the Catherine Brown page, perhaps those entries should have been categorized under specific section headers, an arrangement which, while losing the overall chronological order, has the advantage of clarifying the relationship of each entry to another similar one. I will therefore resort them now under headers and if you then feel that the first arrangement represented a more cogent approach towards researching the desired entry, then the second version can always be reverted to the first or to any other, along with, of course, a reinsertion of the {cleanup} template. Thank you, once again, for your kind sentiments.—Roman Spinner (talk) 08:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Nielsen

Hi Roman Spinner. Thanks for moving John Nielsen to John Nielsen (racing driver) and converting John Nielsen to a disambiguation page. This is just a friendy reminder/request to remember to update the incoming links when performing similar moves/conversions in the future. I and a couple of other editors have fixed the links for John Nielsen. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You and the other Project members were very kind to have attended to the John Nielsen links. After having completed the three racing templates and one list, I was distracted with other tasks and neglected to return in due time to work on the remainder of the links, of which there was still a considerable number. I thank you and the others for taking the time to finish the job.—Roman Spinner (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. DH85868993 (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Carnegie (Member of Parliament of Scotland)

Just letting you know I've requested that your move of 18 June be reverted, but that's only because I can't think of any better suggestions for the article title. Your contributions would be welcome at Talk:James Carnegie (Member of Parliament of Scotland)#Requested move. Opera hat (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Jackson (presidential secretary)

You moved the article William Jackson (secretary to William Jackson (presidential secretary). However, Jackson is almost certainly more notable for his role as secretary to the United States Constitutional Convention than he is for his job as a presidential secretary. The original page name indicated both positions. I wish you had raised the question on the talk page before moving it. Since your move cannot be undone, I've had to submit a move request on the article's talk page. Fishal (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Lefke

Hello Roman Spinner, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lefke, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Judging from the page history, it looks like deletion might be controversial. Please use a requested move. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 05:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I did not offer a sufficiently detailed explanation of my request----the deletion of the redirect Lefke was not meant as a deletion of Lefke itself, but only as a means of moving Lefke (disambugation) [the user who created this page obviously meant "disambiguation"] to Lefke, thus enabling Lefke to continue as a main title header without the unnecessary parenthetical qualifier, "(disambugation)".—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect templates

I have noticed that you create and edit many redirects. I have three comments about your use of redirect templates:

You are not using {{R from modification}} correctly. It is for titles that are slight modifications in layout, word order, punctuation, etc. For redirects like Peter Smyth (politician) please use {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} or {{R from other disambiguation}}.
When appropriate, you should use {{R from surname}} instead of {{R to long name}}, as it is more specific. An example is Borowczyk.
You make lots of redirects from alternative movie titles, including from alternative languages. In such cases, please use {{R from alternative language|lang}}, where lang is a language code (e.g. fr for French).

Gorobay (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your dedicated labor in establishing order amidst misapplied and misnamed redirect templates is much appreciated and I thank you for providing specificity in the case of templates indicated above.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome. Gorobay (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Peggy Stewart

I'm worried by your move of the article on the cargo vessel Peggy Stewart to The Peggy Stewart, and all the many associated changes. While superficially an attractive idea, this is not the way Wikipedia normally treats such names— the preference being to omit "The" (e.g. Mayflower) but to add a post-nominal clarifier in parentheses where disambiguation is needed and no alternative indicator such as "USS" can be applied (e.g. Matthew (ship)). David Trochos (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria J. Romero

I only just saw you'd worked on the the Romero article and redirect page a year+ ago. I came upon the subject in the last month. I came to feel since she was a former legislator now who'd moved into different noteworthy activity that swapping the content to Gloria J. Romero from Gloria Romero (legislator) -- with the redirect going in the opposite direction -- was the better way to have it. I'd have drawn your attention to my proposal before doing the swap if I'd noticed your earlier involvement. You may wish now to take a look at it all. I hope my adjustments hold up, of course, but am open to alt. ideas. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your consideration in notifying me regarding your move of Gloria Romero (legislator) to Gloria J. Romero. The intention of my original move, In July 2011, was to restore the article's main title header to the original name form, "Gloria Romero", under which this article was created in April 2006. On April 24, 2008, a user moved the title to "Gloria J. Romero", and it remained as such, until I moved it back to "Gloria Romero". There was no explanation by the user in April 2008 as to the source for the middle initial "J.", but no references, including Gloria Romero's own campaign website, State Senate directory or linked newspaper and magazine articles list her as "Gloria J.". The sole reference, in fact, is the Ballotpedia entry, created in February 2009, which copied Wikipedia's main title header, the same header, as has been pointed out, that had been moved to "Gloria J.", a few months earlier, in April 2008. Some other post-2008 online sources simply copied Wikipedia's "Gloria J."-titled entry, but no primary sources, including the subject, herself, used "Gloria J.". I was forced to add the parenthetical qualifier "(legislator)", since the creation of a Gloria Romero disambiguation page in April 2008, precluded the use of the pre-April 2008 title of "Gloria Romero". The qualifier "(legislator)" seemed the most appropriate because subjects of Wikipedia biographical entries are primarily disambiguated by a qualifier which describes subject's greatest claim to notability. Clearly, becoming the first woman to hold the leadership position of Democratic majority leader of the California State Senate, was an extremely notable achievement and, with all due respect to her education reform activities, those cannot compete in terms of notability. However, if you would not object to a longer parenthetical qualifier, the article can again be moved to reflect the revised future main header, Gloria Romero (legislator and education activist). The article cannot remain as it is, in any event, since Wikipedia:Copy and paste move must be addressed in that it erases the article's "Revision history" and denies access to users in viewing past versions of the article. Please let me know if you would prefer the main title header to be Gloria Romero (legislator), Gloria Romero (legislator and education reformer) or Gloria Romero (legislator and academic).—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all this and for tracking me down. (Glad I tracked you down, albeit after the fact.) The question has occurred to me why you didn't remove the "J." from the article; I think it should be in this light. I've just Googled and have to agree the evidence for the "J." is scant and non-direct. I don't partic. like the long qualifiers. Gloria Romero (former legislator), maybe? I think I could live with that. I don't think her more recent efforts rank with legislator, though notable. I don't know if there's any protocol for "formers". I could also live with a return to legislator, I guess, though it doesn't feel good, haven't encountered another like this. As to the cut-and-paste, I did consider it, in my way, and thought since both pages still exist and the "trail" between the two is clear, then no history has been erased.

A note at my talk and a little time may be necessary again but I'm not gone and would like to help work this out. I considered just reversing what I'd done and removing the "J." but that seemed precipitous without your thoughts. And I do like "former" better. I guess I like the long qualifiers better, too, "education reformer" or Gloria Romero (legislator and education activist) the best of those. Cheers and thanks again. Swliv (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your reply and willingness to arrive at alternatives. I normally don't change the longer names and middle initials within the articles themselves, unless those appear to be clearly incorrect. The lead sentence of a biographical entry usually lists the subject's entire birth name, as in the stub I moved a couple of days ago (from Mick McGuire (footballer) to Mick McGuire), which begins, "Michael James McGuire (born 4 September 1952 in Blackpool, Lancashire, England), is an English footballer who played as a midfielder in the Football League." Even though Mick McGuire is his best-known public and professional name, his birth name, Michael James McGuire, opens the bio entry. Of course, it would have been more appropriate if the Gloria Romero article began with "Gloria Jane Romero (born...", or "Gloria Josephine Romero (born..." or "Gloria Juanita Romero (born...", rather than with the less-clear "Gloria J. Romero (born...". However, in July 2011, as well as now, I have no reason to believe that the middle initial "J." is incorrect, even if it is not part of her public name in the same manner as some public officials and, in particular, certain presidents (John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, George W. Bush) used their middle initials. In moving the article titles, I usually don't edit the articles themselves, unless I see something which is clearly incorrect. Thus, I will leave the "J." in the lead sentence, but if you think that it clashes with the no-"J." main title header, please feel free to remove the "J." from any and all instances that it appears within the article itself.

As for your mention of any protocol for "formers", I tend to rely on WP:Relative time references, WP:As of and WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Precise language which discourages the use of such terms as "former", "current" or "recent". Senators, congressmen and other legislators from past centuries are long gone, but are still described with qualifiers "(senator)" or "(politician)". If a living legislator is disambiguated as "(former legislator)", would the same legislator, following his/her death, have the qualifier changed to simply "(legislator)", because he/she now belongs to the ages? Dispensing with such adjectives as "former" or "retired", while still describing the subject's circumstances within the article, itself, obviates the need to deal with details of that nature.

Regarding the copy-and-paste move, you are correct, of course, that nothing has been lost and the original history is still contained within the revision history of the Gloria Romero (legislator) redirect, but the date of the article's creation, the name of the user who created it and the number of revisions along with associated comments are no longer directly available and must be accessed through indirect means which may be beyond the immediate ability or comprehension of some users. Ultimately, as stated in Wikipedia:Copy and paste move, "[T]his is highly undesirable, because we need to keep the history with the content for copyright reasons. (See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia)".

Finally, if you think that Gloria Romero (legislator and education activist) is, indeed, the best of the proposed qualifiers, then I will move it (along with the original revision history) to such title within 24 hours.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough attention to my somewhat more offhand comments. Agreed on all fronts and glad you're going forward with the move. I linked to this exchange at the article talk page the other day, for completeness as I saw it. All best. Swliv (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page B.S.C. (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I had used B.S.C. on earlier occasions, but this time, neglected to indicate British Society of Cinematographers|B.S.C.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 12:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Hill dab page

I intended to leave you a qualified endorsement of BOLDness on your part re Hugh Hill, but it turns out i think you've enuf experience here that the emphasis belongs on caution against reckless editing. I hope you'll study WP:Dab and WP:MoSDab ... and you might also be able to learn from the example of Boleyn's oeuvre.
--Jerzy•t 23:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was most considerate of you to take the time to contact me and I appreciate your original intention of the qualified endorsement. Reckless editing should, indeed, be discouraged and we can always learn from MOS and from examples of others. Boleyn was also kind enough to contact me somewhat earlier (User talk:Roman Spinner#Catherine Brown (disambiguation)) and I was likewise grateful to receive that input. It should be noted, however, that, as I indicated in my October 13 edit summary at Hugh Hill ("limiting entry to single blue link"), the red-linked entry below

Sir Hugh Hill, 1st Baronet (1728-1795) of the Hill Baronets, MP for Londonderry City (Parliament of Ireland constituency)

had, at that point, in addition to the red link, two blue links. Also, in the same edit summary, although I pointed out and corrected ("hyphen→endash"), I see that Sir Hugh Hill, 1st Baronet has had his hyphen restored and, in addition, two of the remaining three entries now also contain hyphens in the vital dates.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, as an off-the-cuff and preliminary response, let me own up to never entering en-dashes and not always succeeding in preserving them. I do often notice longer-than-hyphen dashes, without knowing which they really are nor how to duplicate them except by cutting and pasting, so likely it was i who made that mess. I just skimmed wp:dash, i think for the first time, and i'll have a good look as well at it and the preceding (hyphen) section. Do you know off-hand why the bulky but IMO more editor-friendly &...; structures seem so little used?
It sounds like i mis-attributed some of what you saved; i'll have another look at that page when i'm at least 12 hours fresher than now; perhaps i was hasty, even reckless [wink].
--Jerzy•t 05:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Passions characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Woods (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the reminder and have made the correction, with the edit summary stating: "adjusting link for Michael Woods, the actor playing Minor Passions characters#Dr. Ackland, so that it points directly to Michael Woods (actor), thus negating redirect to the Michael Woods disambiguation page"—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Kelly

The disambiguation link for this article seems funny. Is there more than one Jill Kelly in porn? I suppose you want to disambiguate her from the person in the CIA mess? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 14:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome your posting since it presents the opportunity to elucidate the reasoning behind my addition of the disambiguating qualifier "(pornographic actress)" to the "Jill Kelly" entry. As you pointed out, the instant massive publicity generated by the events surrounding the similarly-named Jill Kelley, may naturally indicate that some, possibly most, users would input "Jill Kelly", rather than "Jill Kelley", thus first encountering the entry delineating the pornographic actress as well as the hatnote, which should point them to the Jill Kelly (disambiguation) page where the link to the Jill Kelley article can be found under section header "See also". That is still the case now, as far as the contents of the disambiguation page are concerned, except for the fact that the page is no longer called Jill Kelly (disambiguation), but simply Jill Kelly, thus obviating the need to initially enter the pornographic actress' article. You are correct, of course, that for over nine years, from its creation on August 7, 2003 until the creation of the Jill Kelly (disambiguation) page on November 11, 2012, Jill Kelly was the sole Wikipedia entry bearing this name. However, in the aftermath of the creation of the disambiguation page, the parenthetical qualifier, "(pornographic actress)" has to be appended because the name, Jill Kelly, is now occupied by the disambiguation page. As we can easily determine, most disambiguation pages do not have a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and therefore do not require the use of the qualifier, "(disambiguation)". With all due respect to Jill Kelly's standing in the pornographic industry, her stature, such as it is, simply does not rise to the level of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguator should be "(actress)", since there are no other actresses with that name, hence no further disambiguation is necessary. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You would be correct under ordinary circumstances, especially since this actress has done has some minor acting in non-pornographic films. However, her overriding claim to notability consists of, as her infobox points out, starring roles in adult films "534 as actress" and also "50 as director". Thus, per established practice, as can be confirmed by entries requiring disambiguation in Category:American female pornographic film actors, the parenthetical qualifier is enhanced to "(pornographic actress)" to distinguish the women, as well as the analogously-styled men from "standard" actors and actresses who are found in "standard" acting categories.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Man That Got Away, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The One That Got Away (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These reminders are always appreciated, although in this case, the link was intended, having been deliberately added to highlight the analogous use of the initial cap in "That". When I submitted the then-redirect The Man That Got Away for deletion in order to enable the move of The Man that Got Away to The Man That Got Away, I cited as example the proper capitalization of "That" as it already exists within all the entries seen on The One That Got Away disambiguation page—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page style - Less is generally better :-)

Hi there,

I thought you should know that I've cut down some of the text you added to the "That's My Boy" disambiguation page. While interesting, I felt that it was far more then necessary for a disambiguation page.

Disambiguation pages are not articles in their own right, but navigation aids intended to distinguish similarly-titled articles and subjects. Generally, they should only include the information necessary to clarify things this way, and no more. Anything beyond that is better placed in the article itself.

If you're unfamiliar with the style guidelines for disambiguation pages, you may find the "MOSDAB" article useful.

Hope this helps! All the best, Ubcule (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for devoting the time to compose your comment and for your longtime commitment to improving Wikipedia. Over the years, a few editors have left messages on my talk page regarding this matter and, rather than reword my answers to them, permit me to provide links to a couple of these communications:

—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Eliza Allen Houston" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect "Eliza Allen Houston". Since you had some involvement with the "Eliza Allen Houston" redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Senator2029 “let's talk” 10:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INCOMPDAB

When correcting disambiguation messes like the one you fixed at George Read (Canadian politician), you might want to cite WP:INCOMPDAB in your edit summary, as this policy succinctly explains why we don't have disambig pages with parentheticals in the titles (except, of course, for the word "disambiguation" as needed). Cheers! bd2412 T 02:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A most helpful suggestion and I thank you for it.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 11:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Also, please note that when you turn an existing link into a disambiguation redirect, you should fix all the article links pointing to that redirect. I did this for George Read (Canadian politician), which was easy because all of the existing links were intended for George Read (Alberta politician). In fact, I invite you to join our monthly disambiguation competition - the next one starts Tuesday! Cheers! bd2412 T 13:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my gratitude for your continued help and, particularly, for finishing the task on the George Read disambiguation links which I had left undone. I also appreciate your introduction to the disambiguation competition and will be happy to participate.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Suez (film), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Silver Lode, Annabella and Slightly Scarlet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A useful reminder, indeed. The links have been since adjusted so that these now point to Silver Lode (film), Annabella (actress) and Slightly Scarlet (1956 film), respectively.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American female pornographic film actors)

Category:American female pornographic film actors), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Isle of Forgotten Sins, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Frank Fenton and Tomorrow We Live (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to receive this notice. Both links (Frank Fenton (actor) and Tomorrow We Live (1942 film) have now been properly disambiguated.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scream move

You realize moves are discussed for a reason yes? Scream the 1996 film is the primary topic, the other film was already clearly disambiguated, you had no reason to move that, there has been no complaint about locating the article and it was inappropriate for you to pull off a move without any form of discussion. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome your very prompt response regarding my move of Scream (film) to Scream (1996 film), thus disambiguating it from the same-titled Scream (1981 film). Prior to making a move, I always examine the article's talk page and move log to determine whether the article had been previously moved and whether such a move had ever been discussed or might prove controversial. Finding no such indication within the Talk:Scream (film) page, I made the move purely as a matter of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#Between films of the same name, which states, "[I]f the film is the primary topic, name its article after the film's title without any means of disambiguation. If the film is not the primary topic, name its article after the film's title with "(film)" added at the end". Since this feature is listed as Scream (film), rather than simply as Scream, which is an extensive disambiguation page, it would seem, according to the naming conventions, that a full, year-indicating qualifier, is indicated. Normally, such Manual-of-style-related matters are taken for granted without a discussion, unless there is a pre-existing controversy. If it is your preference to initiate a discussion and a vote on this subject, that is, of course, your prerogative. If you would care to pursue the subject further, I will always be here to respond.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Remember?, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages German and Robert Taylor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shortly before receiving this reminder, I had attended to another Robert Taylor→Robert Taylor (actor) link within the same article, but passed over this link, which, along with the other overlooked link — German→[my original intention was for this link to point towards German accent] has been quickly repaired (as German→German language) by another editor.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your old edit removed maintenance templates from Javed Sheikh. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Epeefleche (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A well-founded notice — removal of maintenance templates should, indeed, be properly justified in the edit summary. Nearly a year after my March 2012 edit, it is difficult to recollect how I arrived at the judgment to conjoin the deletion of the template with the edits that I made to the article itself, but in view of the fact that it is my standard editing procedure to explain all such actions, I can only assume that the deletion was inadvertent. I appreciate the template's belated restoration.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paul Smith (American comedy actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mr. Terrific (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch---I'm glad that bots as well as individuals keep track of such oversights---this matter has now been properly adjusted. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Alfred Hitchcock Presents episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palm Beach (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages

Hello, Roman Spinner. When you moved Geoffrey Cox to a new title and then changed the old title into a disambiguation page, you may not have been aware of WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:

A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix all resulting mis-directed links.

Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Geoffrey Cox" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the posting, Russ. Reminders of this nature are always worthy of commendation since they reinforce the need/obligation as described above.

In the case at hand, prior to making the move, I did, indeed, adjust the two templates as well as the four lists which include the name of Geoffrey Cox (British politician) and intended to apply myself to the remaining links [fewer than 10] shortly after the move. The seemingly extensive number of outstanding links (which attracted the attention of DPL bot and caused the application of the "incominglinks" [more than 25] template) is due to the slow nature (two to five days) of redistribution as it pertains to templated links. Thanks to your reminder, I will attend to the few remaining links immediately and, as for that multitude of other links, I'm sure if we remain patient for a couple of additional days, those will take leave of their own accord. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: William Oakley

Hello Roman Spinner. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of William Oakley, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: You must fix the incoming links before the page can be moved. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to William Oakley may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

writer and producer, known for his work (with Josh Weinstein) on animated series ''The Simpsons'' (executive producers and showrunners for seventh and eighth season (winning three Primetime Emmy

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Emjo Basshe, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Orange County and Lafayette Theatre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Sally Jessy Raphael Show

If you really want to disambiguate for this show, please move the "Sally (1983 TV series)" to "Sally (talk show)". It is a talk show, and not an actual episodic television programme. 92.13.83.63 (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sally (talk show) is, indeed, a useful as well as usable title and I was surprised to see it appear as a redlink in your posting, since it should have already been created as a redirect. I have just, therefore, turned your redlink, above, into a redirect to Sally (1983 TV series). As for your proposal, the consensus has been to disambiguate same-named TV series by the year of initial production, and/or premier broadcast, regardless of the program's genre. Thus, news, game, talk, variety, drama or comedy shows, whether shown weekly or daily, are initially defined as "TV series" and, subsequently categorized under their respective genres. Since there is an already-existing Sally (1957 TV series), my move simply changed the incompletely-disambiguated Sally (TV series) to the analogous Sally (1983 TV series), Moreover, the qualifier in Sally (talk show) is also incomplete in that it doesn't specify radio or television. I will, therefore, create still another redirect, Sally (TV talk show), to rectify that shortcoming. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Battle at Apache Pass may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

*[[Beverly Tyler]] {Mary Kearney]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Battle at Apache Pass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Egan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Play of the Week, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mary Stuart (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roman Catholic Diocese of Fargo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wahpeton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to There's Always Tomorrow may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

effect on the two films in which Douglas Sirk directed her" (''The New Yorker'', April 26, 2010)} ]</ref>, turns up unexpectedly and is now a glamorous fashion designer.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Neville (journalist), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages PM and Vatican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to William Henderson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

(footballer born 1898)]] (1898–1964), Scottish forward who played for Airdrie, Manchester United (1921–25 (36 matches, 17 goals), Preston North End, Clapton Orient, others

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rip Collins

If you want Rip Collins (pitcher) to be primary, the article needs to be moved to Rip Collins with the appropriate hatnote about the disambig page. Is this what you're trying to do? Keegan (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I submitted the redirect Rip Collins for deletion because it was blocking my ability to move Rip Collins (disambiguation) to Rip Collins. Since the Rip Collins (disambiguation) page has no distinctly identifiable consensus for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, there is no need for it to have the parenthetical qualifier, "(disambiguation)". Following the move, the entries on the Rip Collins disambiguation page can be then arranged thusly:

Rip Collins or Ripper Collins may refer to:

Rip Collins (pitcher) (1896–1968)
Ripper Collins (1904–1970)
Rip Collins (catcher) (1909–1969)
Albin "Rip" Collins (born 1927) —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 13:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hiawatha (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native Americans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff D'Amico

I don't know if I agree with the move. Jeff D'Amico (Brewers, Mets, Pirates and Indians pitcher) should be moved back to Jeff D'Amico in my opinion since he is the more known player having played 8 seasons compared to the only 1 season for Jeff D'Amico (Royals pitcher).--Yankees10 03:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your reluctance to consider the use of such a lengthy qualifier. Perhaps Jeff D'Amico (pitcher born 1974) [previously moved: 00:32, 9 September 2009‎ Dewelar (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43 bytes) (+43)‎ . . moved Jeff D'Amico (pitcher born 1974) to Jeff D'Amico (Royals pitcher): Per WP:NC-BASE, team takes precedence over DOB where possible] and Jeff D'Amico (pitcher born 1975) might be acceptable alternatives for both players [these would be analogous to entries such as Rick Anderson (baseball, born 1953) and Rick Anderson (baseball, born 1956) or Alex Gonzalez (shortstop, born 1973) and Alex González (shortstop, born 1977)]. Comparable to the case of the other same-named players, each of whom has a disambiguating qualifier, neither of the Jeff D'Amicos seems to have sufficient historical standing to become a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If you would still, however, prefer for the one who played 8 seasons to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, please let me know and I will put it for WP:RM and let the Project provide a consensus. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 13:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted for the time being, since even if neither pitcher is the primary topic, the qualifier is way too lengthy and is just silly. If you want to make Jeff D'Amico a disambiguation page for both, then that's one thing, but use the entries that already have consensus, like the ones you linked above. Wizardman 22:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of University of Texas at Austin faculty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert L. Mills (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Mills has been disambiguated. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seven Faces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ingenue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ingenue has now been properly disambiguated. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Unger

You removed the middle initial and moved the page for Oliver Unger. I was contacted by his son, Stephen Unger who requested the following: "During his entire life and on all his correspondence and on all his film credits he always used his middle initial. It is true that in a couple of the references he is listed without his middle initial, but they were mistakes. Oliver A. Unger is how he was known professionally and personally and it is how he would have wanted to be known historically." Can you revert your changes and restore the article to its original title? Monnaliza (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the move. The article should, indeed, have remained at Oliver A. Unger and I will immediately attend to the steps necessary for the reversal of my original action. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Roman! I love when the wiki process works and always a pleasure working with reasonable wikipedians.Monnaliza (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the main title header has now been restored to its original proper form, I will take this opportunity to also give my thanks to you for your kind words and your understanding. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guy Edward Hearn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hell's Heroes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bill Lawrence (news personality), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page President Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Implicit comma

Back in July, you moved Rocky King, Inside Detective to Rocky King detective, saying "as confirmed by existing episodes (a number of which are on YouTube"). I have seen the title credits at https://archive.org/details/Rocky_King_Detective and completely agree that around the five-second mark the title credits appear completely lacking the word "Inside." But I would suggest that the article's title should be Rocky King, Detective. On-screen titles are sometimes stylized in ways that are not literally part of the title when mention in print. If we were being literal, the show's title would be

ROCKY KING detective, that is, with ALL CAPS for the name and some extra space between the name and "detective", reflecting the space seen on screen;

If I got really OCD about this, I would also the title tilted to the left about 25 degrees, like it is on the screen.

Consider Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman: as seen at File:Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman.jpg, the title as rendered on the DVD cover lacks a comma, yet the article includes the comma.

This is my case based on my understand of WP:TITLEFORMAT. I'm thinking of proposing that we move the article to Rocky King, Detective; what do you think? 72.244.200.40 (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree with your observations and regret not having considered the orthographic implication of the lowercase "d" as the initial letter of the noun "Detective" within the title, particularly and ironically in view of the fact that, just five minutes ago, I submitted another in a continuing series of arguments in favor of the use of uppercase "W" in the currently ongoing discussion regarding the move of another title, A Boy was Born → A Boy Was Born, at Talk:A Boy was Born.

The comma in Rocky King Detective (Rocky King, Detective), same as in Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman (Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman) however, is a problematic matter. Although stylistically and esthetically, the comma is warranted to set off "Detective" and "Medicine Woman", it does not appear on-screen in either case and, therefore, is not part of the title. According to your own section header, the comma is implicit, rather than explicit, and I am loath to insert or remove any punctuation which does not appear on-screen. In order to fulfill at least one portion of your comment, as well as comply with the Manual of Style regarding title capitalization, I will move Rocky King detective to Rocky King Detective, leaving the question of the comma in the title to be decided in a possible WP:RM discussion. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I declined your speedy deletion request for Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman, as it may be a controversial rename. Using a google search,[1] there are a lot of reliable sources that seem to use the comma. If you go to the show's official web site http://www.drquinnmd.com/ and scroll to the actual text at the bottom of the page, it uses the comma:

DR. QUINN, MEDICINE WOMAN, a high-spirited, hour-long Western family adventure series from The Sullivan Company and CBS Entertainment Productions, is built around the exploits of Dr. Michaela ("Mike") Quinn...

After reading your comments here on your talk page and your edit summaries, I disagree with your conclusions. Just because it "does not appear on screen" may not always be correct. Some TV shows these days seem to being using what is similar to stylized text logos in their opening credits and title sequences. The actual title, with the correct spelling and punctuation, should appear in various text articles, press releases, and other pieces from reliable sources. The link from the official web site I just linked may be one such example. However, if you disagree, you are welcome to post on WP:RM. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've got some more examples of comma use: Inch High, Private Eye (compare File:Inch High Private Eye logo.jpg), Philip Marlowe, Private Eye (compare File:Philip Marlowe, Private Eye S1.jpg), Ace Crawford, Private Eye, Richard Diamond, Private Detective, Martin Kane, Private Eye, Mike Hammer, Private Eye, Pete Boone, Private Eye (and that's just the private eyes).

Sometimes colons are used: Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective (compare File:Ghost Trick Phantom Detective cover art.jpg), Tom Sawyer, Detective (compare File:Tom Sawyer, Detective (novel).jpg), and Dan Turner, Hollywood Detective (compare File:Highadv60.jpg).

I think these examples establish that punctuation is routinely included in titles, regardless of the stylized renderings in cover art and opening credits. 72.244.200.40 (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One size most definitely does not fit all in situations where on-screen (as well as within video games and books) punctuation of titles is concerned (also addition of exclamation points) and they all must be considered on a case-by-case basis. I found so much inconsistency, however, that it only reaffirmed my conviction that the guideline for punctuation in titles should be based upon what appears on-screen. Stylized capitalization of individual words within the title of a work is, of course, a different matter, since capitalization has to be consistent and is guided by the Manual of Style.

As for the individual titles mentioned above, none of their articles' talk pages has a consensus-building discussion regarding specifics of main header punctuation, thus leaving the decision to the discretion of individual editors and to a potential subsequent discussion. Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman has no comma in its on-screen opening credits, on the DVD box set and on the three logos depicted on the show's website. The website's descriptive text, however, as quoted above, does insert a comma within the title, creating an obvious inconsistency which may come to some type of resolution at WP:RM. Among the "Private Eye" series, Ace Crawford, Private Eye and Martin Kane, Private Eye do contain on-screen commas, while Inch High, Private Eye, Richard Diamond, Private Detective and Philip Marlowe, Private Eye do not. I could not find opening credits for Pete Boone, Private Eye.

As for the other titles, Ace Ventura: Pet Detective does have an on-screen colon, but the video game Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective does not. When published in a magazine, Tom Sawyer, Detective did not contain a comma in the title, but the book edition and the 1938 film version do have a comma. In such a case, the book edition (available at Project Gutenberg) is presumed to take precedence over magazine installments. Finally, "Dan Turner, Hollywood Detective" was a judgment call for that article's creator. The book cover does not have a comma, so the article title probably shouldn't have a comma either, but since that is not the title of the book, but rather the name of the hero/protagonist, the comma at least provides a bit of esthetic clarity. There are obviously other examples, but sufficient for the moment… —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 12:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Year of birth missing listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Year of birth missing. Since you had some involvement with the Year of birth missing redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Magioladitis (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Screen Directors Playhouse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Michael Wilding, Richard Long, Frank Fay and William Talman

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]