User talk:William Allen Simpson/Disambiguation

Table and Table (disambiguation)

have been merged per your request at WP:SPLICE. The disambiguation page itself belongs at Table unless there is one meaning the clearly outshines all the others. You might consider requesting:

Moving Table → Table (disambiguation), and
Moving Table (furniture) → Table

at WP:RM if you think it's appropriate, but to me it seems silly for "X" to redirect to "X (disambiguation)". — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 13:15, Jan. 3, 2006

FYI, the opinion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation is that the redirect should go from Table (disambiguation) to Table if the latter is a dab page, not the other way around. Hairy Dude 04:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hairy, I have no idea how you ended up at this old discussion here. While the "opinion" of a project has just about as much standing as a warm bucket of spit, had you looked at the history and language of the current guideline at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Generic topic, you'd notice that I wrote the language (after discussion), and Table (disambiguation) has long been the example there.

--William Allen Simpson 10:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photuris

You fixed up Photuris by doing a cut/paste move. Various edits were hidden/lost when you did that, violating the GFDL licence. I have performed a history merge so everyone gets credit for their work. Never perform a cut and paste move, it's that simple.--Commander Keane 05:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hogwash! The original "Photuris" was originally a multi-stub page, and the person who made "Photuris (disambiguation)" did a cut and paste move. All I did was revert the redirect and fix. Not a single edit history was hidden or lost. Next time, try actually looking at the history, entry by entry, before making such baseless accusations. That 3 edit history that you "saved" was a real barnburner. You lost a dozen entry history, as you bungled merging the histories!

--William Allen Simpson 07:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAST disambiguation page style

Thanks for cleaning up the FAST disambiguation page. If you take a look at the Manual of Style regarding disambiguation pages, it shows that the leading lines should not just be the word, which is why I'm changing that back (just wanted to let you know that there was a reason). Also, unless all of the links are equally common, the general practice is to list the links in order of most common to least common. Alphabetical order is usually only used in a list of names or places (also from the Manual of Style). -- Natalya 12:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Had you been following the discussion and vote, you'd know that these are not considered disambiguation pages. And that there is considerable support for removing the contentious lede sentence fragments.

--William Allen Simpson 13:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected (and have subsequently read up on the progress being made). -- Natalya 19:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're overreaching on the meaning of the poll. Please see the MoS:DP talk page. Tedernst | talk 20:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved V8 engine back to V8

I have reverted your move of V8 to V8 engine as contrary to common primary-topic disambiguation style. If the engine is important enough to be the primary topic at V8, it should actually be at that page name, since it is the most commonly used name. We do not unnecessarily disambiguate names. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 11:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know, and I reverted. See WP:D.

--William Allen Simpson 14:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging inquiry

Good day,

I noticed that you recently started slapping a variety of articles with the [[Category:Human name disambiguation|##NameOfSubject##]] tag. Could you please explain to me what you are up to? Folajimi^(talk)

To the best of my knowledge, I've been doing exactly the opposite. Could you point to my mistake, please?

--William Allen Simpson 05:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa; I misinterpreted what you were up to. The edit summary you left on the Paul Hernandez entry mentioned "deletion", and that was all it took to trip me up. All's well, I guess. Carry on. Folajimi 05:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm hand fixing a couple hundred category tags that didn't get updated by the automatic process, and although I'm taking regular breaks, I'm sure that I'll make a mistake from time to time. Glad you didn't find one yet.

--William Allen Simpson 05:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numberdis

You recently reverted my change of {{numberdis}} to {{disambig}} on 2001: A Space Odyssey. I am a bit unhappy with the interplay between the wording on the template and the category, and would like to hear your comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. Regards, Kusma (討論) 22:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, of course, I restored Gflores use of numberdis that you reverted, and I fixed a bunch of other stuff, too. But I'm not that excited about the template wording either, and I'll join you to improve it!

--William Allen Simpson 23:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I had only read the edit summary, not the actual content of your edit... Your italicization style there is rather pretty, I have to remember to use that the next time I clean up a disambiguation page. Kusma (討論) 23:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to compose my reply there while you're talking here. AFAICT, this was an informal proposal over on MoS:DP, seems a bit of work for a page that nobody is supposed to actually see.... But, I try to conform. ;-)

--William Allen Simpson 23:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Human name disambiguation

I'm sorry, but there is no discussion on the talk page that indicates that there was a debate about renaming, so the keep vote stands, I'm afraid. There were nine votes to keep, and only one to merge, so I don't understand how a single vote trumps nine others? Noisy | Talk 23:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]