User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

G8 exempt

Paine,

Why are all your talk page archives listed as G8 exempt? Since they are all valid subpages of a valid user talk page, they don't qualify for G8 anyway. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ego White Tray – shortly after I started creating subpages of my talk page to use as workpages, a good-minded though avid admin deleted my first workpage because it didn't have an associated userpage. If you'll note at the top of all my subpages, the User page link is red-linked. The long and short of it was that the admin had made a boo-boo. My workpage was restored, and after that I installed the exempt template on all my subpages to hopefully avert any future misunderstandings. Thank you very much for asking! Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Canadian Space Agency

Thank you for your help on the Canadian Space Agency navbar. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Pleasure! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 23:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks, Paine Ellsworth. Because of your kind suggestion, I did put the cookie over there on the page of MatthewVanitas. I DID wonder about that at the time, but wasn't clear on what to do. Anne9853 (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Thank/Undo

I honestly have no idea how any of that works. The "thank" feature appears to be rather new, so I don't know much about it. Bumm13 (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it shows up in my notifications. Bumm13 (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Line breaks when categorizing redirects

In WT:Copyrights#Shortcut needs RCAT update, you stated that there should be a line break preceding the {{redr}} template. Why? (IIRC, the MediaWiki software used to require templates and/or categories[?] to be on the same line as the redirect itself, but that is no longer true. I guess I'm personally sticking with the old way out of inertia.) Is this convention documented elsewhere? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, SoledadKabocha. Now that the software does not restrict placement of Rcats, they are functional in any position on the page. That means that the readability of the code in the edit field can now be taken into account. New contributors sometimes find the edit code very cramped and not too easy to read. I ask for a line break solely for readability of the code. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 20:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

To what extent is this important when there is only one category to be applied and hence one of the r to... templates is used instead of redr? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

To editor SoledadKabocha: Hi. Readability is only as important as the reader feels it should be, and I have read several criticisms over the years as regards the lack of readability of the edit-screen code. As for the use of a single Rcat vs. the Redr template, I always use Redr for from one to six Rcats, because it is designed to render the text in a more professional manner than single Rcats do. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 20:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

PS. Sole exception is when the Rcat has parameters and it is desirable to use them – Rcat parameters cannot be individually rendered by the Redr template any way that I know of.

IPA for English listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect IPA for English. Since you had some involvement with the IPA for English redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Cathfolant (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Query regarding delete page

Hi, i am new to Wiki edits although i am having the account for long time. You replied to my 'help me' query regarding deleting a page. And you also recommended redirecting instead of deleting the article. But I have already created a delete page for the same.(a very arduous task for me ;-) ) So should I try to delete that 'delete page' or let others decide on that? I am sorry if this is not the right place to ask. Eliaskurian (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Eliaskurian... It's great that you took the time to learn the details of WP:DELETE. If you saw my userpage, maybe you looked at my last userbox and will, as I have done, spend some time in the study of WP:PRESERVE, also? Since the deletion is in progress, it would be a good idea to let it continue. I shall enter my opinion there when I am finished here. Best of everything to you and yours! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 19:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Everbridge

I see you've been working on Everbridge. I just declined the A7 speedy, but placed a G11 for drastically promotional content. I think this needs significant work before it can stand as an article. What would you think about userfying it either in your space or the creator's? DES ^(talk) 19:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, it still has the ad template to attract other editors. Maybe a WP:PROD would be a better idea, since Everbridge does strongly appear to be notable and worthy to be a Wikipedia article. I do grant that much of it needs to be edited for encyclopedic content, but it might be premature to delete it before other editors get a chance to take a stab at it? Just sayin'... – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 20:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

When somethign goes live, it needs to comply with basic policies right away. That is the advantage of userspace drafts or articles for creation they get a buffer period, as a rule. If you wnat this restored to work on, as a userspace draft, just say so. Or any other editor may say so, to me or at WP:REFUND. DES ^(talk) 04:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Not for anything, but my understanding is that there are a lot of gray areas, so each case should be dealt with individually. That is why we have maintenance tags like {{advert}}. However in this case, the deleting admin brought up the COI issue. That with everything else that was wrong with the article tells me that the deleter did the right thing. I have userfied the article in my namespace and have pointed the creator to that page. Both the closing admin and I have advised the creator to utilize Afc and "do it right". Thank you, though, for your help and attention! Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 04:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Just wondering ... why are you redirecting the talk pages of redirects?

The reason I ask this question is for a couple of reasons. For one, talk pages are normally only redirected when it centralizes the talk of several related talk pages (such as in the case of Template talk:Merge). Also, in the case with Talk:Stupid pointless annoying messages, removing the {{oldrfd}} removes the link for other users to find the RfD discussion that could have resulted in the redirect's deletion. As far as I have seen on other redirects, the normal practice is to not redirect the talk page, especially if the talk page contains necessary history (such as Talk:Stupid pointless annoying messages does with the {{oldrfd}} tag.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note. I have went ahead and reverted your edit on Talk:Stupid pointless annoying messages; the RCATs that were used on that page, from what I have seen, are supposed to be used on non-talk pages only (since those RCATs are to categorize the redirect itself, not its talk page.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

  Do what you think is best, Steel1943. Personally, I think whether or not a talk page is a redirect matters very little either way. The deletion discussion can be accessed by way of the history page, and redirecting such pages lessens the possibility of split discussions on the same subject. I don't remember coming across any talkspace pages that had associated redirected titles in mainspace or any namespace that were not also redirects themselves. I've catted a lot of them and the Rcats I used can be used in any namespace when they apply. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

  Possibly a majority of those talk page redirects you have seen could have been the result of a page being moved, considering that when a page is moved, so is its talk page, which turns into a redirect. I agree that these discussions can be easily be accessed from the history page, but only if the editor is savvy enough to be able to sift through that information in the history and find what they are looking for. I mean, if I were to put myself in a brand new editor's shoes, I would not even think to look for an old RfD discussion in a talk page history (since nothing would have prompted me and let me know that there was previously an RfD discussion at some point.) But, as a sidenote, I wish there was some sort of template in existence that would be able to link a redirect's RfD disucssion from a different page's talk page (such as its target). If I can get around to it, I might try to start it myself; if it existed, I would have never started this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

  Oh yes, many of the tp redirects are left over from moves. I just found one recently from a 2001 move, which may be the oldest I've found so far. On the flip side, many of them are not from moves, but rather are talkpage shortcuts of the WT:xxx variety. I don't know, maybe your way is best, because I can't imagine the clutter that might result from noting the disposition of redirects on their target pages. The one small concern would be if a new editor tried to open a discussion on the talkpage of a redirect. They may wonder why nobody responds, since nobody really watches those for very long if at all. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 03:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

  True: I can see my idea for creating an RfD historical link on the talk page of its target to eventually result in clutter, so scratch that idea. Regarding the last point about new editors opening up a talk page on the redirect: I would think that usually, the new editor would have "read" the redirect prior to "reading" the redirect's talk page, leading the new editor to the target of the redirect, essentially preventing them from putting the talk information on the wrong talk page, unless the editor is trying to start a new RfD discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

  Well, we were all new once, and I don't know which is worse, opening a discussion on an unwatched talk page or being redirected (and ultimately surprised) to a different talk page while thinking you're still on the redirect's talk page. As you know, a lot of things are confusing for new editors. I've been at it for many years, both registered and IP edits, and I'm still on a learning curve. I still learn new things almost everyday. Since we're all volunteers, the important thing is to keep it fun while we continue to build the ultimate reference work. And I hope that's not just me. ;>) – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 04:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

  I hear you on that: everyday I volunteer time to Wikipedia, I learn more and more about this place! Yep, I remember the days of being a new editor. Looking back, I would say that my worst problem was doing unnecessary cut-and-paste moves, just because I did not know of the existence of WP:RM/TR. (I edited back in the days when copy-and-paste moves were the only way to move pages and when underscores had to be used in place of spaces for all searches, but that was back when I was an IP, and I don't recall any edits I made during that time, or even if I made any.) Sometimes, it can be funny to mess up an edit on here, provided that the mess-up is beneficial to Wikipedia, or the mess-up gets fixed right away and doesn't completely break Wikipedia. :) I wanted to include a funny page that I found a while back about administrators accidentally breaking things in Wikipedia, but right now, I cannot find it for the life of me. Steel1943 (talk) 04:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

  My guess is that you speak of WP:IDIOT. Here's another gem... during the course of this talk, I have also worked on Category:Redirects to talk pages to clear it of talk pages, which are not supposed to be tagged with {{R to talk}}. This led me to Wikipedia:Topical index, a redirect with a blue talk page link. The extraordinary thing for me is that when I clicked on the talk page link, instead of being redirected to a talk page that corresponded to the project page's target, I landed on a live talk page that had a notice at the TOP I had completely forgotten. It is used for talk pages just like the one you and I are discussing. You'll find it at this link. I never cease to be amazed by some of the things I've forgotten. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 05:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

  I remember what that page was now: thanks to seeing WP:IDIOT, I now realize that I was thinking of WP:STOCKS! Reading that page made me laugh! By the way, I'm glad you found that template: seems like the most useful template to put on just about every redirect's non-redirecting talk page, a practice that I'm thinking of starting doing. And here's another ironic "gem", so to speak: the edit that you did on Template:Talkpage of redirect reminded me of a little "project" I gave myself earlier this year: creating a template that can be used on editor's talk pages when a page they had edited is the discussion of a possible move. I tried my hardest to find a way to differentiate code to allow both article talk pages and talk pages of all other spaces, but could not find a way. (The only way I saw it possible was if an imaginary "Article" namespace was created to redirect to all pages in the article namespace, but that's a different discussion that has yet to be started.) I eventually realized that I had to create two different templates: one for the article namespace, and one for the rest. I think I was able to successfully program both to work with the most recent way in which WP:RM is set up, but I'd have to recall. The key I found was to replace the colon with a vertical bar in the names non-article namespace pages when referring to the talk page of non-article pages in code. Steel1943 (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

  To editor Steel1943: I created sandbox and testcases pages for {{Talkpage of redirect}} to play with it a little. I found that the first parser function appears to be totally useless, because since the template is always used on talk pages the magic word {{NAMESPACE}} will always see either an article Talk: or an (other namespace) talk:, and it will always render a page but never render an article. I have to run some errands now, so I'll return to it later. Feel free! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 00:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like I found the right formula. The magic-word variables all take a parameter, and I used {{{1}}} as the page to be operated on for the magic word {{TALKPAGENAME}}, like this: [[{{TALKPAGENAME:{{{1}}}}}]]. When you get a chance, take a look at the sandbox and the testcases pages and see if you can make it fail. I've already tried it on the Talk:Testudines page (preview only) and it worked okay there. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 03:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
PS. See also MediaWiki:Help:Magic words.

I'm going to check this out (haven't done so yet.) If it works the way that I hope it does, and you hope it does as well, I might be able to incorporate this edit into another piece of work I am trying to complete ... crossing my fingers on both this working the way that you want it to, and me hoping that it works the way I want it to as well! :) Steel1943 (talk) 03:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

My fingers are crossed. ;>) – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 03:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I cannot believe it. You just cracked the code for the script I have been trying to figure out for MONTHS!!! I was trying to figure out a way to do JUST THAT for a template I tried to create earlier this year. I cannot believe this! Words cannot explain how excited that I am that you found out how to do this! :) P.S. When I complete the template that I have been working on for ages, I'll ask you to give it a try! Steel1943 (talk) 04:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit sad right now. I almost had my template complete, but then found out that it will not work due to some random Bugzilla 37256. Ha... Guess I am trying to do too much! Steel1943 (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

OUch! Sorry, Steel1943, I hate it when that happens. I asked a much more experienced coder to look at the change I made to ensure that I didn't break something at MediaWiki. Before I tried that experiment, I thought, 'Wow, that sounds radical – to put a template variable inside a magic-word variable – probably won't work.' But it does appear to do the job. Sheesh, I thought I'd be spending several hours on it. Sometimes I get lucky, I guess. Maybe there's a workaround for that bug; I hope so. Stiff upper lip and all that. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 05:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

When you get a chance, take a look at Wikipedia talk:User talk page. I am making random checks from the What links here page of the template. This one didn't have an object page in the first parameter, so I found it and added it. Then I wondered: The redirect goes to a section on the target page, so what would happen if I included the section in the first parameter, as well? You see how it turned out. Pret tee cool. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 06:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Paine Ellsworth, I'm going to give a look to what you have said previously in here in a moment. Before I tell you the news, I want to let you know that I was luckily able to avoid the Bugzilla bug after doing further edits to my template: it could have been possible that I had a bracket in the wrong place or something. Anyways, here's the really good news... I FINALLY FINISHED THE TEMPLATE! Check out the end result: {{RMNote}}. It took me FOREVER to perfect the syntax, and apparently, place "subst:" in all the right places. I never thought it was going to get done! Luckily, I was able to use another template's doc file for an example about what to put on the doc file, but other than that ... it's complete (though there might be some minor tweaks that could be needed in the future for the doc file, etc.) :) Steel1943 (talk) 07:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Good for you, Steel1943! I notice that you use the <includeonly>subst:</includeonly> and wondered if the safesubst: modifier would simplify it for you? Well, it's almost bedtime, so I'll catchya later. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 07:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your reasoning and arguments concerning List of Osmania University people. I've removed the name of Satish Reddy because he is not notable as per the notability guideline of Wikipedia. List of [Name of the university] people lists are somewhat neglected. It appears as if some people add names on such lists for publicity. I believe non-notable names in such lists should be removed. UI1990 (talk) 06:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome, and I am happy to help! Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits to AH31

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit(s) because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Greenmaven (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

To editor Jack Greenmaven: You're correct in that I targeted the Samsung SCH-U750 when, the AH31 is actually the new nomenclature for the SCH-U740. Since this nomenclature is used to denote both an Asian Highway and a Samsung cell phone, it appears that the best way to go would be to turn AH31 into a disambiguation page? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 11:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

PS. Yes, I see also that AH31 is actually linked in the Asian Highway Network article, which makes it a "self-redirect", which is frowned upon? A disambiguation page is the way to go. I'll get right on it.

Instead of dabbing the AH31, I thought it best to leave it a redirect to Asian Highway Network#AH31. As you see I installed an anchor at that point, which turns this into a "redirect with possibilities". It's still a self-redirect, but a few of those are acceptable when they are anchored. The downside is that the red links will get more attention to become articles, unless your project stays on top of the ones that are redirects like AH31. As for the Samsung cell phone, I'll create AH31 (cell phone) to accomodate that one. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 11:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

A Poe excuse for an edit

Quite right. What makes it even worse is that I was already familiar with the quoted material but somehow didn't recognize it in pop-ups view. Thanks for the fix! Rivertorch (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Good one (a Poe excuse). Pleasure to copyedit one of my favorite articles! How have you been? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, since you ask . . . coughing, sneezing, sniffling, and otherwise being the sort of person you wouldn't want to share an elevator with. We can land spacecraft on Mars, clone complex lifeforms, and write the world's best encyclopedia in a mere decade, but we're still as much at the mercy of these little buggers as our Paleolithic ancestors were. Someone should lodge a complaint. Rivertorch (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Technology? Technology? We don't need no stinkin' technology! What kills that beast the best is your own, miraculous immune system. Keep that baby well fed and it can kill a zhillion rhinos! And try to relax – our own personal bug killers work best when we are in a relaxed state. I truly hope you get to feelin' better, because with you around I don't feel so overwhelmed!>) = – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 14:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That was an extraordinarily nice thing to say. <rubbing eyes> Wait, this is Wikipedia, right? For a moment, I thought I was on the wrong site. (Kidding, of course. I think.) Rivertorch (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

T:WPTECH listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect T:WPTECH. Since you had some involvement with the T:WPTECH redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC) p.s. it is a group nom, including T:R from which you created.

Thank you, I left a Keep specifically because the batch included T:R from. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indochinese tiger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nat Geo (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) 09:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 13:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Question about format

I had a minor question about format in the article on Velma Wallis. Would you mind reading it on User Talk:Rothorpe's Talk page? I thought you might know the answer. Thank you. – CorinneSD (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

To editor CorinneSD: The references we want for this are WP:MOS-BIBLIO and WP:BIB#Recommended structure. From what I read there, only the link to the Wikipedia article is necessary to confirm that the book is applicable. As for the external link to the book, it is not necessary and causes confusion. The only advisable additions are the publisher, date and the ISBN, which help readers find the book externally. So after you fix those two, there will be only one book link each to our two encyclopedia articles, and remember to format the book-title links in italics. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 23:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I fixed the two entries in the bibliography. I hope I did it correctly. (I had to go back and change the titles to italics.) I'm just curious – why would there be a link to WP articles for two out of the three titles but not the third? – CorinneSD (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a pleasure to help, CorinneSD! And I think your valid question results in the need to remove that external link (the ISBN points to the title at several websites). Removing the link so it just looks like plain, italic text: Raising Ourselves: A Gwich'in Coming of Age Story from the Yukon River, is what I see in many other bibliographies. Be bold and remove the link. If someone reverts you, then you can discuss it on the article's talk page. If you prefer, I'll be happy to rm the link. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you have decided to remove the link, although I guess I don't really need to know why; I usually edit the articles themselves rather than the bibliographies; it's just that I tend to notice inconsistencies, and I can then point them out to others. But I guess it's always good to learn something new. If you have time, could you explain? You can go ahead and remove the link if you don't mind.CorinneSD (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

At those bib refs I linked to above, the procedure shown is to leave the title unlinked and to rely upon the ISBN link to act as an external reference. Some contributors take a "hard line" on this. Another possibility would be to go ahead and make the title a wikilink, which would become a red link, Raising Ourselves: A Gwich'in Coming of Age Story from the Yukon River, because there is no article yet. That might stimulate a reader to actually write the article. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 13:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

I just removed an unnecessary space at the end of one section in the article on Sri Lanka and before the beginning of the section "Administrative divisions" that had just been added, but I would like, if possible, also to remove an unnecessary space after that heading, but I don't know how to do it. I'm not sure whether the presence of the blue map to the right makes that extra space necessary. Would you mind looking at it? Thank you. – CorinneSD (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

To editor CorinneSD: this one is a little more tricky, so I went ahead and fixed it. The problem lies in a little known "idiosyncrasy" of templates. The map on the right is a template, not an image file. Many templates have something at the bottom of their code, for example a template call to their documentation page, which must be wrapped in <noinclude> tags so it won't be seen in the article along with the (in this case) map. The idiosyncrasy is that the first Noinclude tag must not be on a line by itself. It has to be on the last and final line of the template code and follow that code. You have seen the result if this is not done. If you like, you can go and see the simple fix for this at {{Sri Lankan Provinces and districts}}. I just moved the first Noinclude up a couple lines to follow the final template code. This is a good detail to know. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 23:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

PS. The edit I made to the Sri Lanka page has nothing to do with the problem you caught (good catch, btw!). Using the semicolon that way renders invalid HTML-5. The text that follows must be preceded by a colon to render valid code. The alternative is to use the "bold" apostrophes, ''' instead of the semicolon, and to leave a blank line after (or the bolded subtitle will not appear alone on its own line in the article). PS added by – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX!

I saw the moved "noinclude" in the revision history. The article looks better now. Thank you for fixing that and for explaining how to fix it. I had not even seen the other problem with the semi-colon. – CorinneSD (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Greenland

If you don't mind, could you read the comment I posted a few days ago on my Talk page about the article on Greenland? I posted it there because I didn't want to start any kind of argument on the article's Talk page, but I would appreciate your opinion.CorinneSD (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, MOS:RETAIN is clear on this. The editor, Inglok, cites a page that can be considered the first non-stub version of the article. That edit established British or Oxford spelling with the word "rumoured" rather than "rumored". Looks to me like the change to American English was not in accord with the guideline. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 13:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

To editor CorinneSD: there is new information at Talk:Greenland#WP:ENGVAR. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Where are the pigeons?

Congratulations on becoming a template editor. Where are the pigeons? And what are "Kittenholes"?CorinneSD (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, CorinneSD! The pigeons are still up near the top of this page. And rather than "pigeonholes" for myself, I prefer the term "kittenholes". – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 21:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, now I see them. I thought the pigeons had been on your User page, but I see they are on your Talk page. Sorry.CorinneSD (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Merton

Do you know anything about Thomas Merton? An editor just added two categories but also removed one, ie., Christian humanists. I wonder whether that should have stayed in the article. Do you have any idea?CorinneSD (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, CorinneSD – from what I can see, the IP editor added two cats, Category:Mystics and Category:Christian mystics, both of which appear to be applicable. Category:Christian humanists is still there. The diff page can be a little misleading that way. Isn't it interesting that there is no mention of Merton as a humanist in the article. That categorization might actually be a bad call. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 23:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right, it's still there. I only saw the minus on the left and didn't see the plus on the right, just moving it down the list. Regarding whether the category is appropriate, shall I leave a comment on the Talk page of the article? Also, I wonder what kind of order the categories are in. If they are supposed to be in alphabetical order, shouldn't "Mystics" come after all the items beginning with "C"?CorinneSD (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on the talk page will only become necessary if somebody challenges the maintenance tag I installed. (It was on my list of "things to do".) If I am doing something else with the cats and I notice that they're not in alphabetical order, I usually make them so; same goes for other short lists like See also sections and disambiguation pages. I've never been challenged on it; most contributors realize that it helps readers find things a little more easily. There are other considerations, too, as noted at WP:Categorization#Articles. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 18:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

O.K. I'm glad you put the question there, at the beginning of the article. Thank you for your help. CorinneSD (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a pleasure! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 07:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Bolivia

I finished editing the section on "Geography" in the article on Bolivia, correcting errors and improving syntax, word usage, etc., and I created two bulleted lists to make it easier to read. I wonder if it would now be appropriate to remove "Copy-edit Geography" from the "To-do" list on the Talk page of the article. I don't know if I can do that or if a template editor ought to do that.CorinneSD (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would definitely be considered appropriate, so be bold and go to the Talk:Bolivia/to do page to make the change. This is not something an admin or a template editor must do; anybody can edit to-do lists as long as they are not explicitly fully protected. I haven't checked the rest of the article, so if you feel there is another part that needs to be copyedited, then you might want to include that in the to-do list, as well. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you. When I start reading an article, I usually read, and edit, the entire article. This time I only worked on "Geography" and it took me quite a while. I'll get to the rest of the article today or tomorrow.CorinneSD (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Pleasure! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 22:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Paine Ellsworth. You have new messages at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list.
Message added 18:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

For your review TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 18:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for assistance fixing a sentence in an article

I've posted a comment re Bangladesh on my Talk page, hoping to get help either from you or from Rothorpe.CorinneSD (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Tonga and Niue

If you have time, could you look at a comment I left on my Talk page (toward the end of Archive 2) regarding Tonga and Niue? I would appreciate your opinion.CorinneSD (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Also look at related conversation on Rothorpe's Talk page (I'm sorry, I don't know how to create a link to a talk page.)CorinneSD (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, CorinneSD – a link to a user's talk page is similar to a link to their user page:

• User:Rothorpe
• User talk:Rothorpe

I'm in the middle of something right now, so I will check it out as soon as I can. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 01:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

To editor CorinneSD: Okay, on the Niue page, if you mean this edit by an IP copyeditor, I've looked the edits over and they all seem to be quite good. It's harder to tell if there is a problem on the Tonga page, because there is a back 'n forth in the recent history where editors appear to be taking care of it and reverting the edits with which they don't agree. Hope this helps, because I am not well-versed on the details of the New Zealand region, except that I do have two Norfolk Pine trees in my yard – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 03:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I just think a few of the edits removed words that make the text more understandable and more interesting. When one pares to the bone, the language sometimes becomes uninteresting. Regarding Tonga, the same type of editing was done, a few edits back (before the back-and-forth about statistics). I agree with some of them, but would say the same thing I just said, above. But thanks for looking, anyway.CorinneSD (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Searching for dashes

Hello, very impressed by your technical knowledge. Do you know if there's a way to search for emdashes? Rothorpe (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment! I'm not sure what you mean. Do you want to search for emdashes in an article? If so, then you should be able to use the find function of your browser. I have used IE10's find function to locate hyphens (such as those in date ranges) and change them to endashes, as per the MOS. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course I should have made myself clear, apologies. The problem is that I can't type emdashes on my Portuguese keyboard. I always have to use the Insert Symbol facility to put in both kinds of proper (non-hyphen) dash, and that doesn't work with Find. I thought it would make it easier to remove the spaces round them, a trivial matter. Never mind, many thanks for the prompt reply. Rothorpe (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anybody has a kb that has emdashes. What I do is copy and paste, for example, when I looked for curly quotes (typographic “) to replace them with typewriter/keyboard "straight" quotes (") per MOS:QUOTEMARKS, I just copy/pasted a set of curlies to the find field while I was in the Edit screen. Then each curly I found, I replaced with a straight. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 03:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I had already tried that with IE, and it doesn't work: the 'prohibited' sign appears. But I thought I'd give it a go in Chrome, and hey presto. So there we are - many thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Frothing. and curious, because when I copy an emdash from the insert links below the edit screen and place it in the IE10 find field, it works perfectly. I can click "Next" until I land on the emdash I want, and then I can either delete it and replace it with an inserted endash, or make or delete spaces around it, and so forth. Wish I knew what to tell you. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 18:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been having difficulties with pasting in IE recently, and this may merely be another symptom. I've decided to accept the fact that I need to switch between browsers. Rothorpe (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, while I use Firefox and Chrome to check my edits, I still prefer IE to edit. What kind of difficulties are you having? I just CTRL C and then CTRL V to the find field. You're having trouble with that? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 01:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes the text is like stone and just won't move. (I always use the mouse, having no idea about keyboard commands.) Rothorpe (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There are only three kb commands I use (so simple even I can do it), and each one involves the mouse: CTRL X, CTRL C and CTRL V. With the mouse, select the text you want to "cut", then do a CTRL X and it's gone. Or, select the text you want to copy, then press CTRL C. Use the mouse to place the cursor where you want to paste the text, in this case the "Find" field, then do a CTRL V. Since I've never had a problem where the text was "like stone", I may be missing something. But give the above a try as a possible workaround to "chisel" away the stone. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 01:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Great, it works perfectly. Thanks enormously. Of course, as always with these things, I'm having no problems with the mouse method at the moment, but if - when I do, I'll be sure to do that. Thanks again! Rothorpe (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy to help! Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Pseudo-namespace Redirects

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 112#RFC: On the controversy of the pseudo-namespace shortcuts

There is currently an RFC opened at the village pump to clarify current consensus and policies about the controversial pseudo-namespace redirects that you might want to participate in. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 23:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

To editor TeleComNasSprVen: Thank you so much for inclusion! I have left a brief ditty at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Discussion. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 03:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Edmonton

Regarding Template:Edmonton, if you look at the source, it was a template transclusion, the soft redirect was only used as a notice. 117Avenue (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I've actually removed the notices, Moxy just said he was planning on writing a navbox under that name. 117Avenue (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, 117Avenue! You also removed the categorization, but that's okay as I've added it back, and two of them had to be changed, anyway. This is all very curious to me. It appears that somebody (Moxy? or Kyle1278?) tried to make a template similar to {{Calgary}} and {{Ottawa}}, but you opposed it on the grounds that "Edmonton" is ambiguous for a template? How is that more "ambiguous" than, say, "Ottawa" or "Calgary"? I just don't understand what is wrong with making a navbar for Edmonton that is like the ones for Calgary and Ottawa. What made you contest that and change it into a redirect? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 01:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, never mind, I think I get it now. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 01:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedic content policy listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedic content policy. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedic content policy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Protections

Just checking that this is what you were after. All the best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes, a thousand (and twenty nine thirty one) times yes! (Almost forgot about this one and this one!) – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 01:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I think they were both in the batch—according to their histories they were. If there are any more, just let me know (or got to RfPP). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Bangladesh

Hi! I saw you just made this edit in that article to change a sentence regarding which a discussion is underway, your valuable suggestions will be appreciated. Thanks.--Zayeem ^(talk) 18:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Zayeem – I responded at Talk:Bangladesh#History - 20th century. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 21:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

7.0.2 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 7.0.2. Since you had some involvement with the 7.0.2 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Enirco Cerulli listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Enirco Cerulli. Since you had some involvement with the Enirco Cerulli redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

C:WRONG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect C:WRONG. Since you had some involvement with the C:WRONG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Ki Hajar Dewantara

In the article on Ki Hajar Dewantara there are long stretches of text that were clearly written by a non-native speaker of English. Before I realized how much was not in standard English, I tried to put some sections into English but gave up. Is there some kind of tag you could add to the beginning of the article to alert readers to this and urge editors who know the topic to improve the article? Or would it be better to delete the poorly-written sections? – CorinneSD (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, CorinneSD – This sounds like the article may need one of the language maintenance tags at the top of the page or sections. There are two project banners at Talk:Ki Hajar Dewantara, and perhaps the people there can be of help? Let me know how it goes. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 10:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: WPR

Personally, i don't see the point. Nothing wrong with just using the full name, and the abbreviations will just make it more confusing for people in the future. Wizardman 05:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting – then you don't find any good in the use of shortcuts? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 07:07, 7 January 2014 (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 (☎) 17:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a pleasure, and thank you! Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Moving articles around is above my pay grade, and fraught with unintended consequences and difficulty. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

MOS:FOLLOW and WP:MOSFOLLOW nominated for deletion

This retargetting of obsolete and charged shortcut has caused considerable confusion. The only one using it seems to be Skookum1, who remembers what it used to mean. So I've recommended them for deletion. Dicklyon (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know – I shall abstain from interference with their deletion. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 23:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

... for adding the list of patrons to the Galileo infobox. After doing a bit of research, I see that your list is spot-on.  ~Eric:71.20.250.51 (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Pleasure! Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 23:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: The editor who actually made that list was David Wilson! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX!

Thanks for the reminder; I'll also leave a note on his talk page. ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Reverted edit of brown anole

Where do brown anoles find waxworms and mealworms? Do you have a citation for any of the insect species? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigemag76 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Gigemag76 – The diets of anoles are pretty well-known and documented. They have no trouble with consumption of such as waxworms and mealworms in captivity, so since both the moth and the beetle range globally, their larvae will also be available in the wild in the brown anole's range. A read of those articles and about the adults and their ranges should hook this up for you. And I'll see if I can find a reliable source if you still need one. Also, remember that the diet section of the article does not make any distinction between wild foods and captivity meals. There really isn't any distinction, because the brown anole will eat just about anything it will get in its mouth. The ones in my own yard will generally not devour ants; however, I have seen one from time to time position themselves next to an ant line and snack on the little gals, one after another. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

"From a joint biography"

Hi. If I understand correctly,[1]
Diane Dillon (my work today) and Laurence Canter (your work last month) are those two among 81 Redirects to joint biographies that are implemented by template {{Redr|to joint biography}} or {{R to joint biography}} rather than the old {{redirect to joint biography}}. (Yesterday I used the latter about a dozen times; today learned of both the shorter name and {{Redr}}.)

The R to joint biographies message displayed at Dillon and Canter is incorrect. Should be "To a joint biography", I suppose, rather than "From". Perhaps you know where to fix that.

P.S. Why do you judge Laurence Canter "unprintworthy"? I wonder whether you mean "without possibilities".

--P64 (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I did find that and fixed the name parameter value, among other hopeful improvements. --P64 (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, P64 – Excellent improvements! I just tweaked that rcat a little more and created and expanded the documentation page. Since the name "Laurence Canter" is also included in the target article's name, I saw no need to make the redirect appear in a printed version of Wikipedia. If in the future Canter's notability increases, then the unprintworthy rcat can be removed and {{R with possibilities}} can be included, which also sorts to Category:Printworthy redirects by default. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 04:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

How do you know the latter? Is it implied by appearance of the template {R with possibilities} in the templates category Templates for printworthy redirects, or as a main page in the redirects category Printworthy redirects?

R from person is with-possibilities by default in that Redirects from individual people is a subcategory of Redirects with possibilities, but that does not hold for the latter and Printworthy redirects.

Anyway I wonder whether your default pertains only to redirects that are explicitly with-possibilities? I have supposed, but now doubt, that all R from person and children such as R from spouse are printworthy by default, so I have not put any R from person in the with-possibilities or the printworthy category explicitly.

Perhaps Laurence Canter is not printworthy and Martha Siegel is pw so long as "he" sorts with the joint biography under Canter and "she" sorts to Siegel--perhaps until the article is moved to Martha Siegel and Laurence Canter. Not all joint biographies are now alphabetically named, eg Louis Eppolito and Stephen Caracappa. --P64 (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, P64 – I've been struggling with this for several days and still don't have an answer that might be satifying to you or even to me. Strictly speaking, printworthiness is not necessarily a function of the level of notability of the redirect title itself. Whenever I've tagged such redirects, the question I ask myself is, "Do I think this redirect title is suitable for a printed version of Wikipedia?" That question isn't always easy to answer, and there is really no guideline or policy that details how to answer it. So we answer it the best way we know how based on experience. And I've never been avid about defending such a decision if other editors disagree with it avidly. For example, suppose there is a mega-talented actor whose surname redirects to the article with his common name – Pacino → Al Pacino – how would you have categorized that Pacino redirect? I struggled a bit with it before coming to the conclusion that it would not be helpful in a printed version of Wikipedia. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. FYI i haven't actively tagged any redirects as (un)printworthy or with(out) possibilities. Thus I leave it to the defaults, as {R from person} are printworthy and with possibilities by default. I have maintained the {R to joint biography} subcategory completely and I know it contains only genuine R from person, not from variants of their names.

That is also true of Redirects from writers, a hard category that I recently moved under individual people, whereas the two other small subcats of individual people contain one anomaly each --I have maintained them incompletely, so to speak.

The anomalies are that {{R from spouse}} covers "Anusha bhagat" as well as "Anusha Bhagat"; {{R from relative}} covers "Trigger Tha Gambler" as well as "Trigger tha Gambler". I didn't move either of those into one of the variant name categories --using template {{R from other capitalisation}} in these instances-- because those now display messages with commitments about their targets; that the target page name is the appropriate variant name. Instead I raised the matter at Wikipedia talk:Categorizing redirects#R from other capitalisation.

--P64 (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

R from misspelling : Just for articles?

I see you recently updated Template:R from misspelling. FYI, I am starting to see them turn up as errors, e.g., see Talk:Subrosa, and even Talk:MacOS—one that you just tagged a week ago. I was about to {{trout}} you for that. Just want to make sure you really want to restrict this template to mainspace, because I'm sure that more of these will be turning up. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Just today I removed the {{Main other}} template from the printworthiness section of that rcat, and that is what is causing the problem. I'm not sure why, yet, but I'll revert my edit and then figure it out. Thank you for the heads up! Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 23:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Wbm1058, it's fixed – it might take a while for CAT:WRONG to clear out. I cleared a few with null edits, and the rest should clear within a few hours/days. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Latest set of changes to Template:R from alternative language

Valid lang tags without an ISO 639 name page and invalid lang tags get the red tpl link treatment. See here. A workaround would be to use ifexist. Cheers — lfdder 15:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

 Working on it. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed – Thank you very much, lfdder, for a good catch! Should be fixed now. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 18:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Nationality

Hello. I would like to give you a heads up, and would like to invite your comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Nationality of people from disputed territory/country/colony/region as I am contemplating un'redirect'ing Wikipedia:Nationality (which you edited) and replacing the page with a description of "what nationality could mean for the purpose of editing Wikipedia biography articles and categorizing people." which I briefly outlined in the discussion. Yiba (talk | contribs) 06:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, thank you very much, Yiba, for this notice and for your feelings that I might add something to that discussion. Truth is, after reading from top to bottom, my feeling is that many of the responders seem to feel that this is all unnecessary overcomplication. I wish I could say that I am wise enough to know what is correct, but the only thought that comes to mind is a quip from Albert Einstein, something to the effect that we should "keep things simple, but not too simple". With more and more people in our world, and with the ever-changing political boundaries, there may very well be a growing need for more precise coverage of nationality in biographical articles, especially when BLP is a concern.

Also, I note at the failed proposal you found at WP:Citizenship and nationality that it was first formed in 2007 and has been added to and subtracted from many times even up to the present. This tells me that it is still a concern, so my suggestion would be to draft a Wikipedia project page that will eventually become "Wikipedia:Nationality" and when it is finished to your satisfaction, create it from that redirect. And while I've never created a guideline nor policy, I'm sure there is a page, WP:GUIDELINE(?), for how to do this. The need appears to be a guideline to shed more detailed light on nationality in all its facets. I would draw heavily on NPOV policy and improve on the effort that began in 2007. I wish you the best of good fortune in this matter and in all matters. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Pack of Wolves Award

Template:Pack of Wolves Award has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thought it was about time you received recognition for you hard work in categorizing redirects and editing disambiguation pages! Cheers! Steel1943 (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Good to cya, Steel man! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 00:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad to be back! Steel1943 (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Module:Language

I've noticed you do some work with language templates, so I thought you might be interested to chip in (or just to know about) here. Cheers — lfdder 02:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Paine Ellsworth. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 05:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

! Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Rcats needed

A redirect, User:Rebert, which redirects to a preserved talk page that is evidently attributed to the late Roger Ebert, needs rcats (redirect category templates) added. Please modify it as follows:

• from this...

#REDIRECT [[User talk:Rebert]]

{{This is a redirect|to talk}}

• to this...

#REDIRECT [[User talk:Rebert]]

{{This is a redirect|to talk|from shortcut|fully protected}}

• WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE MIDDLE LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The {{This is a redirect}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. Thank you in advance! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 11:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: I didn't add the "from shortcut" category, as the target is "User talk:Rebert", not "User talk:Roger Ebert" - just redirecting from user page to user talk page doesn't really count as a shortcut, in my opinion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Stradivarius – my reasoning was that editors could use the user-page, shorter by 5 keystrokes, the same ways and times they would use other shortcuts. I'm sure there is a wide range of personal perception about what is and what is not a shortcut; however, in the overall scheme of things, it is a small matter. I am happy to accept your judgement and proper sort of the redirect to the fully protected category. Truth is, this request began with the addition of only the protection rcat. I added the shortcut rcat as an afterthought, so our judgements are not really so far off, after all. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 00:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:R from surname

I commented on the talk page, but thought best to ask here as well; could you undo your edit? Category:Redirects from surnames is an administration category and so shouldn't be a child of a mainspace category in the first place. The template documentation still says "This redirect category (rcat) template populates both Category:Surnames and Category:Redirects from surnames." —Xezbeth (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Xezbeth! I responded on the rcat's talk page. The /doc page was an oversight on my part that has been corrected. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Cardiff Arms Park

		The Original Barnstar
		Due to your help, the article was drastically improved. It solved the image problem and made it look good too. I very rarely give Barnstars, but you deserve it! You are are a real Wikipedia star...thank you! SethWhales talk 23:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a pleasure! and thank you very much for this Barnstar! – Paine

RfC

This is a neutral notice to someone who has edited Desireé Cousteau that there is a Request for Comment there. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

To editor Tenebrae: A belated thank you for informing me about the Rfc. Sorry it hasn't gone the way you would have liked; however, please don't let that discourage you. I've been through many such discussions, and sometimes I've gotten my way and sometimes not. The WP project has very strict policies about biographies of people who may yet be alive. Also sorry about the "crack" I made in regard to your mention of your journalism experience. It was only meant in jest; there was absolutely no disrespect intended. This encyclopedia still needs the passionate touch of good editors, and you have shown such passion in your desire to improve that article. May you have happy trails and a great many... Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Paine. I was just mentioning to another editor who contacted me on my talk page that the discussion has very civil, much more so than these things sometimes can be, and I, for one, do appreciate that.

And thank you for appreciating the fact that I contacted editors neutrally based solely on the objective criterion of all registered editors in 2013 and 2014, without regard to whether I thought they'd support the RfC. I can't say it's not "going my way" (or what I would say as "having the RfC be supported). Arxiloxos, for instance, seems to support it. My feeling is that the editors in the discussion are mostly debating in good faith — although some of the attacks on the NYT-owned The Ledger itself and the nature of wire services were, I think reasonable can agree, unwarranted. The "Bob's Wire Service" contention, whoever made it, was particularly so.

Parenthetically, I did note your own "crack," as you call it, and I do see the smiley face to indicate it is in jest. I don't think it was meant in ill will at all and I don't take it personally; it's kind of you to bring it up in the explanatory way you did. While I'm concerned that others might read it as snarky and feel it gives license to be snarky themselves, it's just one comment in a sea of them, so I'm sure it's fine. And as I mentioned to the editor who suggested that the cite was dug up through invasive, data-mining means, this cite and its wire-report brethren are the results of absolutely basic Googling not requiring professional training. :)

And ironically, I don't think you and I are far apart. In fact, if you go back over the article's edits, you 'll see I was the very editor who changed the wording from "birth name" to "other name." I'm sorry I used the term "real name" colloquially in the RfC statement rather than the long legalese that would be the alternative. But you and I agree it's just "other name" and I hope we can proceed from there.

I do think your term "alias" is less neutral than others and has connotations, especially in this context, of wrongdoing and trying to hide one's identity. If that's the assumption we're making, then we'd need to make that assumption for every person whose arrest was reported, which no one does, either here or in journalism. I'm not sure there's any objective reason to single this person out by suggesting she performed a criminal act by lying to the police about her identity. Being an adult-film star doesn't mean one has criminal tendencies, or goes out of one's way to falsify one's driver's license.

I do want to say I appreciate your graciousness and your highly positive and constructive tone. That means a lot to me; as you can imagine, after nearly nine years here I've seen editors who aren't always models of decorum! With thanks and regards, Tenebrae (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

And given that you see my good will, I hope you will join me in objecting to Elaqueate's attempt to essentially conclude the RfC on his own and edit the statement that was the stable status quo at the beginning of the RfC. We're not supposed to touch to disputed content once an RfC has started. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, your good will is appreciated, Tenebrae; however, there is one note that should be read and honored. In the principles reflected at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, which was cited in Elaqueate's edit summary, one result of that arbitration is clear:

• ...such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.

So I strongly recommend that you self-revert until the Rfc is officially ended. It's the right thing to do. Isn't it wrong to pick out just one of several "other names" and give it undue weight over the others? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

That was the only name reported nationally by the Associated Press from a public-information police report, so the "undue weight" argument is specious. An AP story from a public-information police report is nothing contentious or non-BLP-complinat, so it is not "such material." You're using false arguments to support your opinion. That is so not proper.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

That is "only your opinion" and is trumped by WP policy as I've noted above, as has been noted on the article talk page by another editor, and has been argued against by several other editors on that talk page. We absolutely must wait until the RfC has closed before adding back in the contentious material. This has been reported to the BLP noticeboard by myself and by another editor. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 18:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

To editor Tenebrae: you have nearly twice as much WP experience as I have. Are you sure that flying against policy is the thing to do? If I'm not mistaken, 3RR does not apply to BLP issues, so even one revert can get one or both of us blocked from editing. I will take no more steps to get you to see this; only responses will I give from this point on. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 18:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I again appreciate your civility and calm tone. For my part, I must be being unclear, which is a shame on me given my profession. I'm not flying against policy. The policy refers to contentious, defamatory claims. Having the article give an "other" name cited by a major reliable source is not contentious or defamatory.

I think we can agree on that, right? That someone's reliably cited name in and other itself is not contentious or defamatory?

So the next part is: The name is cited to a reliably sourced, national report of public information about a public figure. It involves a misdemeanor arrest that factually happened. It's not even mentioned in the article itself. So what you're saying is that a responsible, journalistic citation of an ordinary fact is contentious / defamatory. A citation is neutral. A citation to a factual reliable source is not contentious or defamatory, hence it doesn't "fly against BLP."--Tenebrae (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for helping

	Thanks for helping
	Thanks for the advice, My next question were should I insert the tornado history in Natrona County. Should it go under general history or geography Camthetornado (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a pleasure to help, Camthetornado! You should probably begin by inserting the info under the General history. If the involved editors feel it should be added in a different section, they will let you know. Joys! – Paine

Non(-)paper

What exactly makes Nonpaper unprintworthy, while Non-paper is printworthy?

I understand that a strict interpretation of "usefulness in a printed encyclopedia" might justify having only one redirect within a set of similar modifications considered printworthy, but I haven't noticed a precedent for such an interpretation elsewhere on Wikipedia. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Another good question asked by you! This is what I refer to as a fly-by (or flyby ) judgement call. In this case I know next to nothing about the meaning and usage of the term Aide-mémoire, so I really didn't know which modification, nonpaper or non-paper, is more or mostly used by English-speaking delegates. All I had to go by was its usage in the article, which is the hyphenated mod. Other than that, SoledadKabocha, at this point it is still pretty much up to each of us to make as informed a decision as we can make. I ask myself, "How useful is it to have two nearly identical terms in a printed version?" Now, please know that I am not the final authority on this, so if your experience gives you a better position to know that, say, the non-hyphenated mod, nonpaper, is the usual and common usage, then by all means make that the printworthy redirect. And if this is the case, you might want to consider removing the hyphen from the bold "non-paper" in the article, as well. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 21:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:R no print

Template:R no print has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. (Seems as though you weren't notified of this discussion when the template was nominated. Also, I have asked you a question regarding this template in the discussion; I'm hoping that you can provide some clarification in the matter. Cheers!) Steel1943 (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I left a keep !vote, and I hope my explanation was clear. Apparently my additions to the template documentation need to be tweaked for clarity. Any help would be appreciated! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll do what I can, even though I still have a concern (which I posted on the discussion.) I'm willing to help out however possible, time allowing. Steel1943 (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that's all I can ask. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 18:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Seeking guidance

Hello Paine Ellsworth, can you show me a link to the instructions for referencing the redirect's talk page when wp:blp applies? I am familiar with wp:blp in general, and understand that it does apply; I am specifically interested in the rcat guidelines. Thank you.—John Cline (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This is all still in its infancy, John, so I don't think it's written yet, and please call me Paine. I borrowed the "reliable source on the talk page" from an old set of instructions for disambiguation pages. Since redirects are not "articles", there should be no sources listed in the text on the redirect page, so for those relatively rare times when they are needed, reference citations can go on the talk page. They are needed whenever there is a BLP issue on any Wikipedia page. Please see the lead at WP:BLP. Joys! Oh! and welcome back! – Paine  01:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've done three: Talk:Peter Hernandez, Talk:Peter G. Hernandez, and Talk:Peter Gene Hernandez. I pasted a portion of the source text with its reference. I ensured each source referenced the exact form of the redirect as well; plus added {{blp}}. Best regards.—John Cline (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be good to make a project banner for WikiProject Redirect, which I didn't find; and a banner would be another good thing, I think. I could whip one up pretty quick too, if your busy.—John Cline (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and made {{WPRedirect}}. It's fully modifiable in accordance with its standard WikiProject functions, so tweak it as you like.

That is an excellent idea! The reason I say that is because I proposed a banner awhile back. So before you take it further, you may want to see my rendition:

• User:Paine Ellsworth/WPRBanner

...along with its associated discussion, which has hit a standstill:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect#Project banner

– Paine  19:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) By the way, I just nominated {{WPRedirect}} for WP:TFD. I have posted rationale there that hopefully makes sense ... or not. Steel1943 (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Steel1943 – I left a comment, as I have opened a proposal to which I've linked above. It is of utmost importance that those who want to use the banner should place it only on actual project talk pages such as the project talk page itself, rcat talk pages, index talk pages, and so on. Only a very few redirect talk pages should carry the banner, and this will be noted right in the documentation for the banner template. The page that was deleted before was {{WikiProject Redirect}}, and the page that should actually be created is {{WikiProjectRedirect}}, so I thought that {{WPRedirect}} could eventually be used as an alias for that template as soon as the community approves the banner. – Paine  01:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages of redirected pages

Hello Paine, I wanted to share an observation with you. I noticed that when a redirect is created by virtue of a page move, both the Page, and Talk:Page are redirected to their corresponding "new target". For example; evaluate: Talk:The Real Richie Rich (record producer). Considering our formulated example of Talk:Gordon Sumner, Shouldn't the 1st line actually be:

#REDIRECT [[Talk:Sting (musician)]]

?—John Cline (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

If I understand the question, in the case of Talk:The Real Richie Rich (record producer) there is no name change, but just a move to a page without the disambiguator in parentheses. In the case of Talk:Gordon Sumner, we have created a type of "soft" redirect by virtue of the {{Talk page of redirect}} template. A "hard" redirect such as #REDIRECT [[Talk:Sting (musician)]] could technically also be used, since text is allowed on redirects, but in this case that sort of usage might confuse editors with little experience. A click of the "Talk" link would jump them to Sting's talk page with a little link at the top for the actual redirect, where the source info would be. So, for the purposes of talk pages where we want to add BLP reference sources, a soft redirect is less confusing, isn't it? or have I missed your point? – Paine  08:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I think you expressed clear understanding, and I agree that a "hard redirect" isn't required for talk pages we create. It only becomes a problem if the redirected title was ever the article's "live title" per the concern of broken links. For example: Talk:Bradley Manning should always be a "hard redirect" because it was once a live talk page and links to it, in the former title, are likely to exist. The danger is that it might be confusing to prescribe some examples as "soft redirects" and others as "hard" when the "hard redirect" ensures no broken links, and also displays its text for those arriving there by the redirect=no parameter. I thought it might be something worthy of consideration and wanted to run it by you.—John Cline (talk) 08:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The following was inadvertently erased: To editor John Cline: You know, John? it does occur to me that we are being redundant here. The sources I used on the Sumner talk page were those I found on Sting's main article page, so I ask myself, 'Why do we need to list them twice?' Any personal names that redirect to a pseudonym should always be mentioned and sourced on the pseudonym article page. Perhaps we should rethink the need to show those same sources again on the personal name's talk page? – Paine  08:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not against deeper thought and further considerations. For example, it already occurred to me that {{R from misspelling}} would be a difficult name configuration to source. Another issue that may need to be addressed are redirects created to prevent the creation of a "bad title" or prevent moving an article into a similar bad title. I think an {{Rcat}} is needed for this class or redirect as well.—John Cline (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

So something like {{R from unsuitable title}} may be called for? I like that! – Paine  09:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

John, I went ahead and reworded {{R from personal name}} and its documentation to allow for there being reference sources listed in the target article. That way, if they are already there (in the target article), then they don't have to be listed again on the redirect's talk page. – Paine  10:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

That seems fine. Also, I noticed that {{R from incorrect name}} seems to contain the gist of "unsuitable titles". Especially when considering the numerous Rcats that redirect through it.[2]. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Paine and John Cline, on the doc page for {{R from personal name}}, could some wording be included on how it differs from {{R from birth name}}? (I almost wanted to either redirect it to the birth name template, or slap a {{Db-t3}} tag on it when I saw it, but I figured I would discuss it here this time, rather than immediately tag it for deletion.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes I'll add this.—John Cline (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Steel! – Paine  01:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

John, I've tweaked the wording of {{R from incorrect name}} to clarify its usage as a bad-title tag. – Paine  01:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:R from subtopic without possibilities

Template:R from subtopic without possibilities has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Netoholic @ 18:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this notification! Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 00:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

"Occupy" protests

Excuse me. You renamed this article based on a request and a discussion. I am unaware of the discussion, you do not point to it. More importantly, there is no mention of the ongoing discussion of this article in the Talk page for the article. I believe this is therefore an improperly conducted discussion and the resultant move is improper.

Given the opportunity to discuss this, the new title, particularly with the quotation marks, injects a POV into the article. It in the context of saying the "so called . . . " Additionally, you have deviated from the common name for the "movement" and instead have reduced it into a much less significant sounding "protest" as in a short lived event. That is a pretty strong editorial change in wikipedia's voice, without a public discussion, without a true consensus. This entire action has no pressing need to be made and a lot of reason for it not to have been made. Trackinfo (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand what you mean. I did not move anything but only added rcats. The page move to Occupy movement was made back in 2011 and is still in place. "Occupy" protests is still a redirect, not an article. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 03:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I changed the rcat to {{R from unsuitable title}} to clarify. Joys! – Paine  03:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Usurping a redirect

Hello Paine. I read the deletion discussion for {{R with}} and discerned your frustration defending the template's usefulness. I am reluctant to ask, but: would you object to my desire to usurp that page to develop it into a functional rcat? If it didn't exist, I probably would have created it as the perfect title for what I hope to develop.—John Cline (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Now you have me curious about how you intend to use it. Of course it is okay with me – it seems I am the only one who uses it, anyway, as a reference on my workpage. There are other aliases for the short index that I can use, like {{R help}} (it's old name) and {{R to}}, so by all means, if you have found a way to improve it from a redirect, then do abscond with {{with}}. – Paine  15:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes in the music thread above the template configurations I mentioned wanting you to see include examples of what I want to explore with {{R with}}. a small example is at User:John Cline/welcome and a much larger example is at {{Ga.legis}} which i went a bit overboard with. You might notice that over half of the content for the entire group of articles listed at List of state government committees (Georgia) regulates through it. It's complexity is why I think it exist this day, which i figure you 'll see what I mean there. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello friend! I noticed where you once said : your health had declined. I would foremost want to greet you saying; wishing wellness, and other good things – even the full Christian grace; of brotherly love, and faith that I will always have another day speaking with you. I am very glad seeing that you are a template editor, and that you are proficient in general – working with templates. I always have a risible need for guidance in working with syntax and function. I do hope you get a chance to review {{R w}}; the gist of my goal with that rcat is laid out enough that you can know what I was going for with it. As a template editor, I would ask you to merge {{R w|p}} with {{R with possibilities}}; so that they both render identical. I am hoping to retain some of the styling and prose, either way I appreciate the consideration. Thank you Paine.—John Cline (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, John, I am having a lot of trouble understanding this template, {{R with}}. You seem to be asking editors to discern among several levels of "R with possibilities", when it is sometimes very hard just to make the basic distinction between with and without possibilities. Also, how do you determine printworthiness for the various levels? It all seems a lot more complicated than it should be. – Paine  23:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

addition to Template:Infobox minor planet

Could you add the parameter MOID to the template Template:Infobox minor planet, with the two different options MOID_au and MOID_ld. It would be helpful for many near-earth objects and such for something like that. 107.184.134.64 (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Sorry it's taken so long, but I've not felt well lately. The changes you want made are not clearly explained. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. It may be more effective and efficient to ask for these changes on the talk page of the involved template by use of {{Edit template-protected}}. That is only if the changes are not controversial. If these changes might be contested, then you must first develop a consensus for them before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 23:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Rcat Categorization

Hello Paine. Currently {{R with possibilities}} links to Category:Template redirects with possibilities in the main template. It should link to Category:Redirects with possibilities, It is protected so if you will look at it, I would appreciate it. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, John – I've been under the weather and pretty much sticking to gnomish edits. I hope to address above concerns soon. Please don't be concerned about this one, though, because it is set up to link to Category:Template redirects with possibilities only when it is on a template page. When it is on any other page, it links to Category:Redirects with possibilities – for example: Maldives Sultanate. Joys! – Paine 

Yes thank you. I hope you are soon feeling well. Sincerely.—John Cline (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You might like

Hello Paine, hope all is well. I stumbled across this neat template you may like, and may have seen. I hadn't seen it, and find it quite useful. Enjoy.—John Cline (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Does music sooth the soul?

Paine, do you enjoy music at all, as an encyclopedic topic?—John Cline (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do like music – sometimes I listen to music while I edit, and I've edited many song, album, EP articles and their redirects. I don't know about "souls"; however, I do find music to be a calm and soothing influence over the savage beast. – Paine  02:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

That is potentially very good news. If you are at all interested, I couldn't ask for more competent help, or fresher ideas than you could bring to the table at WP:RECP and P:RECP. Be as bold as you like, if you would like. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, John, I'm honored that you asked! I have some errands and tasks, and then I'll look in on those links. Joys! – Paine 

Well, John, I have taken a look at the project and portal pages, and I've started with improving the so-called "inactive" Portal:Featured content/Portals that is used on the portal page. There were several missing images that showed "Error..." in big red letters, so I replaced those. Also, there were two missing numbers – apparently portals that had been removed – so I installed two portals (P:RECP can be found at #88) and updated the "max switch" value. If I see anything else that needs a tweak, I'll take care of it. Joys! – Paine  17:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

That's great. I didn't have much help and needed plenty. let me know if something is confusing which wouldn't surprise, and soon enough, if you hadn't found them sooner, I will ask you to look at a few template configurations to see how they could be better and also to see if any of it could be useful with rcat endeavors. Best regards.—John Cline (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Confusing?

Hello, When you are able, please look at the three pages trying to end up here. For some reason I can't figure, magic words don't render any output on these pages. Do you know why?—John Cline (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, very confusing. Forgive me, John, it may be the meds, but I don't seem to be able to put two and two together today. If the three pages that are trying to end up in the non-existing category, Category:Wikiproject Redirect s, are CAT:R, CAT:RDR and CAT:RE, then they have already ended up there, at least in my browser, which is IEv10. Also, I don't understand:

• What is or are the magic word or words that you're trying to get to render output on those shortcut pages?
• What is the need for such a complicated template as {{WPRe}}, which appears to fulfill the same functions as other templates that already exist? For example, the {{This is a redirect}} template already places rcats on redirects and has a parameter, "e#", that already adds explanatory text(s) when necessary. So what purpose is served by {{WPRe}} that is not already served by other templates? – Paine  19:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
• One more confusing item – you seem to be placing {{WPRe}} on rcats. What you may not realize is that once the project banner is approved and placed on rcat talk pages, they will then be properly categorized as project pages of interest. What you are doing with {{WPRe}} appears to be redundant. Please clarify. – Paine 

I'm sure you are correct, I'll not add it any more and I'll handle removing it as well.—John Cline (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Regroup & clarify

I think I put the cart before the horse Paine; I apologize. I'll stick with the sandbox to develop any future proposals. Anyway, one thing I was working on probably did seem duplicative of the {{Redr}}, though I intended it as complimentary. If in fact {{Redr}} duplicates what I was working towards, I didn't realize this, apologizing again for my error. If on the other hand, I am correct, that {{This is a redirect}} doesn't work similar to a {{banner shell}}, then I think it would be useful if a template could shell any redirect configured with:

Individual {{Rcat}}s	With a shell; as such:
#REDIRECT [[(target page name)]] {{R from album}} {{R to list}} {{R to anchor}}	#REDIRECT [[(target page name)]] {{Redr|shell| {{R from album}} {{R to list}} {{R to anchor}} }}

And subsequently render identical output as if the syntax had been reconfigured into {{Redr|from album|to list|to anchor}}. Does {{Redr}} already do this, or do you agree that a "shell" switch would be useful?—John Cline (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, {{Redr}} can already tag redirects directly with

{{Redr|from album|to list|to anchor}} or

{{Redr|R from album|R to list|R to anchor}}

...whichever editors prefer. {{This is a redirect}} is a meta- or master template, so I suppose it is already a type of "shell" template, if I understand the term correctly. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 12:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that where {{Redr}} requires you to modify the {{Rcat}}'s syntax by replacing the opening brackets with a pipe and removing the closing brackets for each individual rcat, a shell encases the existing syntax without modification. Consider the examples:

Side by side by side comparison

{{Redr}} configuration	{{Redr|shell}} configuration uses a #switch: inside {{Redr}}	{{Redr shell}} would be a separate template
#REDIRECT [[(target page name)]] {{Redr |R from album |R to list |R to anchor }}	#REDIRECT [[(target page name)]] {{Redr|shell| {{R from album}} {{R to list}} {{R to anchor}} }}	#REDIRECT [[(target page name)]] {{Redr shell| {{R from album}} {{R to list}} {{R to anchor}} }}

I feel this would give a convenience option for redirects that are already configured with individual rcats whereas a redirect that has not been categorized at all would probably be more convenient using the existing formating style. This is one aspect I did want you to consider and look forward to seeing your reply.—John Cline (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, now I see it – very similar to other shell templates such as {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}. For a long time I searched for a way to pass the individual parameters of rcats to the {{Redr}} template. Because that template uses pipes to separate its parameters, and because my knowledge of the #switch function is very poor, it took a long time for me to figure out how to pass individual rcat parameters to Redr. A shell like the one you propose would have worked and would have made it easy. I did finally figure out how to pass the parameters, though, so Redr works even better than the shell, because the rcats can be added without the leading "R", which over time saves a lot of keystrokes, since most rcats either don't have parameters or don't usually need to pass them to Redr.

Not sure what you mean by it being more convenient to use a shell on already-configured redirects, but not on redirects with rcats? – Paine  21:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I just figure if a redirect only has:

#REDIRECT [[Target page name]]

up top, the better option would be:

'{{Redr|from album|to list|to anchor}}.

If the redirect already has two or three rcats in place:

#REDIRECT [[Target page name]]

{{R from album}}
{{R to list }}
{{R to anchor}}

the better option I think, would be to "shell" them:

#REDIRECT [[Target page name]]

{{R shell|
{{R from album}}
{{R to list }}
{{R to anchor}}
}}

They're just ideas is all; hoping some might develop into something useful. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Your ideas of a shell template do have merit. I just wish we had had this talk many moons ago when I was trying to find a way to pass those parameters. For example:

• For a redirect in English to a target in, say, Arabic:

#REDIRECT [[(target article name)]]

{{R shell|
{{R from alternative language|en|ar}}
}}

...may have been easier to implement and more preferable to:

#REDIRECT [[(target article name)]]

{{Redr|from alternative language|p1=en|n1=ar}}

...which is where {{Redr}} is now – it uses p# to pass the first rcat parameter, n# to pass the second and e# to provide any extra information needed. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 00:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

U:Pe

I'm guessing from User talk: Paine Ellsworth/Workpage that you'll be chasing me on this at some point, so this is me preempting that. Unlike CAT: or H:, "U" is not a namespace or pseudo-namespace, and as a result your page is not actually a shortcut as described at Wikipedia:Shortcut and therefore not exempt from WP:CSD#R2. Redirects from the mainspace to the userspace are simply not allowed.--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I suppose that, at first, I considered "chasing" you, but I'm getting too old to be concerned about the raised hairs on the back of my neck, especially over such trivial issues. I think you're incorrect because:

• WP:SC is a guideline – I do not read anywhere within that guideline that "U:" cannot be used as a shortcut prefix, a pseudonamespace shortcut. Nowhere does it say that my shortcut is "simply not allowed".
• I contested your CSD banner by removing it – BRD guides us then to discuss it rather than for you to just go ahead and delete it.

So, thank you for at least opening a discussion on the matter, Jac16888, and I'm sure I haven't changed your mind. I would just ask that you ask yourself, "Why?" Why would anyone consider a harmless, low-maintenance, properly categorized (unprintworthy, so it will never be seen in a printed version of Wikipedia) shortcut that a volunteer contributor considers quite useful, to be something that is undesirable and must be deleted? – U:pe (– Paine  17:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC))

SC clearly states what the only pseudonamespaces are, U is not one. I did not tag the page, I deleted it after you removed the tag (which you should not have done), I was well within policy to delete a page which clearly meets a CSD criteria without discussion. The why is simple, and there are several reasons. One, a link from the mainspace to a userspace can imply to non-experienced editors following a link that your page is actually an article. Two, I can think of no scenario where such a redirect would actually be useful, how often do you find yourself having to link to your userpage where your signature will not suffice? Three, U:PE has little actual bearing on your real username, I've no doubt there are hundreds if not thousands of other editors that could use that same redirect. Currently there are zero redirects from the mainspace to the userspace and I can't see any reason to allow yours. U:Pe was a textbook example of R2, and I will be very surprised if you can find another experienced editor who feels differently--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

We'll just have to agree to disagree, then. It does concern me a little that you feel I was wrong to remove the banner. Please read the banner: If this template does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please remove this notice. In my opinion, for which the banner obviously allows, my shortcut did not and does not meet the criteria. Opinions are like hearts – everybody has one. Joys! – Paine 

To quote Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it"--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you notice that there is no Contest this speedy deletion button? It appears that the banner is lacking and misleading. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 18:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Will all due respect, you've been here long enough to know how CSD works, I don't think a missing button is really an excuse.--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Right back at you, respectwise – but isn't it mostly new editors who get their redirects tagged as such? Who speaks for them? I'm just an old fuddy-duddy whose heart has attacked him a time or two. The fact remains that {{db-r2}} does not give editors the option that the policy page clearly states that it should. Without that option, the only choice left open to contesting editors, including us old farts, is to strip the tag from the page. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 18:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Better?--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Joys! – Paine  19:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

A rescue

Hello Paine. I'm not sure how this developed, but you can get some millage out of {{U}} for page links like U:Pe. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, John! All I can say is, it's a very different encyclopedia project than when I first registered. I suppose deletionists fulfill a necessary function, but to target users' shortcut redirects seems to me to be just a tad "overkill". There are so many "bad" articles, project pages, portal pages, templates and so forth, that to go around telling users that their harmless shortcuts aren't useful appears to be a bit tyrannical, don't you think? – Paine  19:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

R categorization question

What is the intended difference in the categorization parameter in templates like {{R to anchor}} which use |main category= and one's like {{R from incorrect name}} which use |all category=? Thanks.—John Cline (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, John – this is explained in detail in the {{Redirect template}} documentation. In a nutshell, rcats that use Redirect template can be set to either sort to only one category or sort to all categories by use of the category parameter. If only one cat is used, for example in {{R to anchor}}, which I see you changed from "all category=" to "main category=", the rcat is only usable in the main article namespace. So I would ask that you change that back to "all category=", which allows for the rcat to be used in all namespaces. If only used in one namespace, and the rcat tags a redirect in any other namespace, the redirect will not be sorted to the rcat's category, but will instead be sorted to CAT:WRONG. If you will please check that category, you will see the results of your {{R to anchor}} change. CAT:WRONG should be empty. You can empty it again by simply resetting R to anchor to "all category=Redirects to embedded anchors".

When I say "all namespaces", I mean all those listed at the Redirect template's documentation. There are excluded namespaces, which can easily be added if someone finds a use for them, e.g., Book:, Draft:, etc. – Paine  19:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't mean to save that with the change in place, I'll set it back to what it was.—John Cline (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Please review a tentative proposal

Paine, please review a proposal I am working on and let me know what you think. Please leave any reply there for now. Thanks.—John Cline (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

To editor John Cline: I'm still digesting this, John. First impression is that there are indeed some rcats that could stand some collapsed content. Also, that it might be good if the text on the left, "See category for more ←", could be indented, possibly by use of the {{pad}} template. The words sort of hang outside on the left and don't follow the form and flow of the other rcats, many of which would not need a collapsible function. Looks good so far, very nice. – Paine  02:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

PS. Also, the left-arrow above should be to the left of the text. PS added by – Paine 

I modified things as you suggested. More can be done. I also linked the main category which I had forgotten to do. Let me know your thoughts, and of certainty, if you want to tweak anything yourself, you should know that would be great. Be well.—John Cline (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:R from template shortcut

The "maroon" color looks like a broken red link (which has been clicked). I was going to remove the color, but I realized that you probably want it in some color? Christian75 (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Christian75 – is this better? I just "marooned" the phrase for emphasis, because editors still have a problem choosing the correct rcat to tag shortcuts. If the double-underline is superior to the maroon color, let me know and I'll update the live template. – Paine  21:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Columnar lists

Hi, re this edit - I see that you largely reverted my edit of a couple of weeks ago. There were two reasons that I made that edit: (i) accessibility - by using {{col-break}} we are splitting one contiguous list into several smaller lists - it's pretty much the same issue as WP:LISTGAP, but by avoiding explicit column end/begins we also avoid explicit list-end/begins; (ii) we don't know how wide the user's screen is, so it is not a good idea to force a particular number of columns. If the screen is too narrow (like a handheld device), they will be crushed; if the screen is wide, there will be a gap to the right of the last column. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Redrose64 – this has been fixed. I understand the concept, as I've been giving reflists a 30em width, but old habits die hard. I'll do better hereafter. Thank you for your gentle reminder! Joys! – Paine  18:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Paine. When you have a chance, please look in on a related discussion in which you likely have needed insight. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

North of Scotland Cup - expert help

Thank you for your help. It is greatly appreciated.

Pleasure! – Paine 

Incorrect names

Hello Paine. I'm sure you would see, but want to expedite that you know that I added __NOINDEX__ to {{R from incorrect name}}. I saw a need to use the magic word and this seemed the best rcat to use it with. Your ideas are appreciated. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 09:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Another thought just occurred to me as I was updating the documentation. It almost seems that this category should not have the print-worthy option. My rationale is that whatever reason gives it print-worthyness would also indicate another, more appropriate rcat. What are your thoughts in this regard as well. Thanks.—John Cline (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

To editor John Cline: Could you let me know what need you saw that prompted you to add the __NOINDEX__ directly to the template code? The only thing that does is to keep the redirects tagged with {{R from incorrect name}} from being found by search engines. That basically defeats the purpose, because those who search for a page but are only aware of the incorrect name will be lost. Those readers will not get to where they want to be because the name (incorrect) they type into the search field will not come up – they will not be able to find the correct name by searching for the bad name.

The printworthy option is for those times when the incorrect name for a target is also the correct name of someone or something else that may be notable at some point in the future and might have an article written about them (see also: {{R with possibilities}}). This is the same rationale as with {{R from misspelling}}. I'll explain this in the documentation when I have some more time. Joys! – Paine  06:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

PS. The reason I added the printworthy option can be found in this discussion. PS added by – Paine 

Thank you Paine. I have been back and forth in my mind regarding when it would be preferable to noindex a redirect. It would probably be better as a parameter that could be used, but not necessarily always used, and the default may in fact be better off than on. I won't quibble with any change you make to include not using the magic word at all. I may have over thought this, but my thoughts were: At first a user boldly moved a page, in good faith, from its wp:commonname, West Fertilizer Company explosion, to West Fertilizer Company disaster. I felt it needed discussion and reverted it back.

I also searched the new title and noticed many top hits were being generated from the redirect being indexed. Not only Wikipedia, but the many mirrors as well. Previously there were very few hits in that title and it seemed that most reliable sources were deliberate in not classifying it a disaster. I began to wonder if we should exercise restraint before essentially promoting a title that is known to be incorrect, perhaps even one with negative bias built in.

Although it isn't as easy linking to an article if the redirect isn't indexed, it's not entirely impossible, but assumes the one searching has a modicum of common sense, and would choose from the reformulated search suggestions at the bottom of the page. That may be overly optimistic. Other examples might include indexing Richard Jewell as "the 1996 Olympic bomber", Sunil Tripathi as "the Boston Marathon bomber" or Paul Kevin Curtis as the 2013 ricin attacker. I'm not entirely certain what our responsibilities are here, but I feel we have some. Thanks for discussing this with me and helping achieve the best end. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 07:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

No problemo, John, I wish I could help more; however, my health issues keep me away from some of it. BTW, here is a discussion you might find interesting; it's about a proposed rcat. Also, you've probably already noticed WikiProject Redirect, and I cordially invite you to join all the rest of us "unsung heroes" by adding your sig to the member list. Joys! – Paine  14:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: R with possibilities/doc

The irony with all these "R ..." redirect templates is that we just about lost them about 5 years ago because a lot of people didn't understand how they worked (mainly due to the MediaWiki bug that prevented the display of text on redirect pages). I wrote a short summary about {{R from other capitalisation}} and the MediaWiki bug in a subpage in my userspace here. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Tothwolf! (Just peekin' in from our vacation.) I do appreciate the irony. It took quite a while to get T16323 fixed, which was a pleasant surprise when it finally happened earlier this year. Onward and wolfward! Joys! – Paine  21:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

email if possible

It's very Hard for Me to Align my Questions on my Talk Page, so if We email Each other, then I'll be Able to Align my Questions? If I align my Questions for You, then It'll be Easier for You to Understand what I'm trying to Ask? My email's maxbrown999@yahoo.com (50.173.3.162 (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)).

1. I have no idea what this is about. All I see on your talk page is a discussion with another editor...
2. I only give out my email to registered users. You are welcome to register.
3. Writing is writing, whether it is on a talk page or in email. The only difference is that email affords more privacy. It won't help "align" anything.

Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 04:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)