User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Edit Notice template

Hi, about a year ago you add an editnotice template per my request to Highway Patrol (Australian TV series) at the page Template:Editnotices/Page/Highway Patrol (Australian TV series). The notice was to attempt to deter an IP user from continuing to copy the synopsis of episodes of the program from official sources, thus breaching copyright. I have recently split that article, so episodes are now listed at List of Highway Patrol (Australian TV series) episodes. I was wondering if you would be able to transfer or copy the template to this new article also. I was going to request it per the normal channel, but considering it isn't really a new request was wondering if you would be able to do it. Thanks. -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I would be glad to, Whats new?, and just to be clear (you said "also" above), do you want that same edit notice to exist for both pages, or do you want it to be for the new list page only?  Paine  ^u/c 06:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't think there's any harm keeping it on both articles, although I'm not sure that particular issue will exist on the main article now given no synopsis should be included on it. I might defer to your wiser judgement on that one! While I have you here on this track also, a similar template on the article Beach Cops at Template:Editnotices/Page/Beach Cops exists however it has expired. I was updating both articles as both programs are about to begin new seasons, so if you wouldn't mind reactivating that one also, it would be appreciated. -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, all done.  Paine  ^u/c 06:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much. -- Whats new?^(talk) 07:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Pleasure! Paine  

Please stop editing this article (BWV 525–530)

You might have noticed that I am the sole creator of this article and that it is still under construction. That is explained quite explicitly on the talk page. There are empty sections for the content on reception. I am simultanesusly editing several articles. Please could you stop altering this article when it is still in the course of being created? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have stopped now that the construction notice is in place. After I moved the page the notice was not in place. Since the article is in mainspace and not in draftspace or your userspace, it may be improved by any editor on Wikipedia, as you well know.  Paine  ^u/c 14:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Please learn to read the talk page more carefully. There are clearly marked sections, like this Talk:Organ_Sonatas_(Bach)#Progress_report. I think it is a myth to think that everybody on wikipedia can edit all articles or that all articles are created outside mainspace. How long have you been editing wikipedia? Mathsci (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Not as long as you have, which makes your behavior a mystery to me. Ten-year vets should know better IMHO.  Paine  ^u/c 15:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:ISO 639 name au

There is no ISO 639 code for Australian English. You shouldn’t just make up codes. I suggest using the BCP 47 code en-AU. Gorobay (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

That's what we get when I continue to edit while in need of sleep. Thank you beyond words for setting me straight, Gorobay, and for all your good work here that I keep seeing as I edit the language redirects!  Paine  ^u/c 15:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

R from official name

Hi, Paine.

I see you're the last person who updated Template:R from official name.

I'd like to suggest that it should be a real template, not a redirect. But I lack the skills to write it.

It would for example be a much better to have such a specific template rather than template:R from alternative name for the redirect at StudioCanal Limited.

But I see the existing redirect is transcluded in a large number of pages. Perhaps template:R from legal name would be better, it seems available... but it's not nearly so widely applicable.

Comments? Andrewa (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andrewa – I agree that R from official name is now used enough to warrant its own rcat. I will research the transclusions to get the particulars and then build the template. I see no reason why it cannot be used right now on the SC Limited redirect instead of the alternative name rcat. Once the new rcat is launched with its own category, the SC Limited redirect would then be sorted more specifically.  Rules of enpagement Paine  15:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, glad I asked... I understand most (only) of the above, but it seems in good hands! I'll start using the redir as appropriate. I've just created another candidate and notice that another RM closer has done a third since I raised this. Andrewa (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I have updated wp:Official names#Where there is an official name that is not the article title to advise that this template should be used. Although that is just a section of an essay, the contents of that whole section should be in guidelines somewhere. AFAIK none of it is, so I'll have another go at it when I get a moment. Andrewa (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

New York

Hello Paine and thank you for bothering to read such a verbose RM. It's helpful to have a comment from an uninvolved experienced editor - especially when it confirms my view! We're still unclear about the outcome or even whether the RM has been closed. The opposition has avoided discussion of key issues such as "does New York have a primary topic?", and presented no concrete arguments of their own for supporters to refute (or be persuaded by). I'm afraid it's drifting towards "no consensus", mainly because the opposition keeps repeating verbose assertions that there is no consensus. That's really not going to help sort out the incoming links, despite sterling efforts by bd2412 and others, because editors will continue casually linking to New York when they mean the city. I know I'm ranting to the converted here so thanks for listening. Certes (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a pleasure, Certes! I suppose ranting is all that's left to us now. Nearly fifty editors with half of us strongly in support of the page move having provided solid, policy-based argument, and the other half with no leg to stand on other than "We've been doing it wrong for so long, we may as well keep doing it wrong!!!" and "It doesn't hurt anything, and just look at how much work it's going to take to make it right!!!" They're all good editors, and the opposers are quite clear that a "no consensus" close maintains the status quo no matter how wrong it is, no matter how much against policy it is. Any objective page mover, admin or non-admin, would do what's right and close the discussion with a clear-cut Moved decision. It's crystal clear that the closing panel is torn between status quo and doing what's right. And it sadly appears that they will meekly take the "easy way out". Not to put too sharp a point on it, I was involved in the move review and in the ensuing relisted discussion. Just haven't been too involved in the post-move, ants-in-pants discussion.  Paine  ^u/c 17:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I do apologise. It's so long since the original discussion that I'd forgotten you were one of the editors who contributed concisely and then sat back. Certes (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

'Sokay, no worries. Like fifty other editors I just wish it would all be over (per policy) so we could get closure and finally move on to correct the errors of so many years of an imprecise "New York" title masquerading as a primary topic... of anything.  Paine  ^u/c 18:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

So good they renamed it twice. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is good! It's the only city I've ever gotten lost in. Driving through, if one could call it that, because mostly I spent time parked at traffic lights while literally mobs of people crossed the street in front of me... and kept crossing even after the light turned green for me – there was no stopping the pedestrians. So I opened my door and stepped out of my car, and there... right next to me... were the many flags around the base of the Empire State Building. I looked up, and up, and up! (And when I looked back down my car was gone! (just kidding)) I did enjoy being lost-but-not-really-lost in the core of the big Wild Apple.  Paine  ^u/c 20:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought that if you crossed on a "don't walk", the NYPD would haul you straight in? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Mob rule?  Paine  ^u/c 22:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Your email

To editor Andrewa: I received notification that you sent me an email; however, I have not yet received the email. You may want to try resending?  Paine  ^u/c 10:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

It was just to suggest that you might be a bit more careful to avoid personal attacks at talk:New York. See my more recent post at talk:New York#Behaviour. Andrewa (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I suppose it might all be in the perceptions – I don't consider myself having been attacked, nor do I think I've personally attacked anyone. This is a unique type of discussion, Andrewa, truly. It's a one-in-a-million opportunity to get to know some of the finest people who edit Wikipedia! The move request has not been properly closed yet, so it's really a great way to try to understand the rationales of the opposers. Those rationales still don't make a lot of sense to me, and they most certainly should not be considered weighty enough to circumvent the policies and guidelines. If I were to close this request, I would have closed it the same way it was closed in June, and I still would. How many times have we been involved in page moves only to have them closed in a way we had not supported? And how many of those times did we have to just walk away without really understanding how that could have happened? This present opportunity provides us with time to either sway opposing opinions or understand them, and I fully intend to do one or the other!  Paine  ^u/c 08:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you may have just reinvented Andrew's Principle.

But the bizarre thing is, as I assess it, we have had consensus to move ever since I have been involved. I confess I have not even looked at the previous RMs. I'll get around to it sometime. It looks like an open and shut case to me. Andrewa (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

In a nutshell, the June discussion was closed by a page mover rather than an admin. Since the article was move-protected, an admin had to actually move the page, and it was moved to New York (state). The opposers made a huge stink about how the request shouldn't have been closed by a page mover especially not by an editor who did not have the tools to move the page. So it went to Move Review, and the discussion was reopened... by you. Of course there is an even richer history going back many years, which makes this situation such a colorful and continuing "saga".

As an aside, as a sometimes all too verbose a writer, I am perhaps overly curious to find out what your vegemite test is.  Paine  ^u/c 09:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Vegemite is seen by many Aussies as very Australian (I don't like it much except in vegemite and walnut sandwiches which somehow really rock) and the Vegemite Test is good Aussie practicality sense. The test is, if a word has more syllables than the word "Vegemite", don't use it. Practicality fails the test. (Depending how you count the dipthong, Australian might fail too, but Aussie is OK. But I think Australian, like discussion, is OK too. Phenolphthalene is right out.) Andrewa (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I can only wonder (even counting the ending dipthong as "ya" rather than "ee-ya"), where does that leave "Wikipedia"?  Paine  ^u/c 11:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Eucalyptus, Jacaranda, Kookaburra, Tasmania, Victoria, Woolloomooloo and of course Ironmonger. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention all the four+-syllable usernames like older ≠ wiser, HJMitchell, Alanscottwalker, BD2412 and of course, Redrose64!>)  Paine  ^u/c 19:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it likely that we'll adopt the vegemite test for user names, or cite it as a basis for renaming Wikipedia. And it's of limited use in articles on chemistry (which itself passes) and archeology (which fails badly).

But out in the bush we tend to use short words. It can work. And just to try to keep your words as short as you can is great fun at times. At least here in the bush we think so. Small things for small minds some think I know. Andrewa (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I remember one of my instructors reminding me to only use words of six or fewer letters. I think he was joking, but not sure.  Paine  ^u/c 16:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It may have been said in fun. But it can work too.

Monosyllabic is too long, on both counts. I do not know a short word I can use for that.

But if one starts to rant both of these two rules soon stop that. Don't you think? Andrewa (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know – to be honest, many rants get stamped tl;dr, even mine if you could believe it (EMIYCBI), so I get bored and stop reading them (EMIYCBI). How about long acronyms?  Paine  ^u/c 18:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

"EMIYCBI"? DKWTM.

Yes, I participated in the RM that went to MR and in the MR... I wonder what would have happened had I closed the RM as move rather than participated? We will never know. I thought it best to participate as the consensus was clear but not as clear as I would have liked, just because there were so many illogical and/or counter-to-policy !votes to discard. I then became proposer of record of the next RM, as the MR had decided to relist, but the format that had been decided required a proposer and the original proposer was not willing to do it.

Agree BTW that the (lone) closer has exercised a supervote, arguably a super-duper vote as the other two panelists both supported the move, but one then had a bet both ways, and then as you say they both disappeared. Actually there was unanimous assessment of the move arguments as stronger, just not strong enough. But while supervotes are generally held in great contempt, they are not actually banned under any policy that I can see... depending a bit on what is meant by a supervote, which is not clear to me either.

But that is water under the bridge. My focus now is the next RM. If I move it, it will be a normal RM, and significantly different to the last one (two?) in that it will explicitly propose that only the New York State article move, with New York becoming a primary redirect to New York City. That will be the explicit proposal, two parts of a package, yes or no.

I actually think that we have sufficient reason to propose this immediately, on the grounds firstly of the RfC, and secondly of the primary redirect part of the proposal, which is an option that has not been considered in the last (one or two) RM(s). But I am also strongly of the opinion that it's best to wait a while yet. We do not want another misfire. Andrewa (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan, Andrewa, a good plan. It may all hinge upon what happens with my latest response to Newyorkbrad. If NYBrad does withdraw their close, then we may select a new closer or panel to properly close the requested move. On the other hand, if NYBrad decides to maintain their position, either explicitly or tacitly by not responding, then the only recourse would be to take the unorthodox and insufficient close to MRV. For me, those options are what I think of as "moving on".  Paine  ^u/c 06:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:IPAc-yue and Template:C-yue

Dear Paine Ellsworth, Please Help me fix this convertation template because i cannot fix these, please help me, i really need your help. 愛耶穌 (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi 愛耶穌 – The {{Tone-yue}} template had to be created, and I also created Category:Ill-formatted IPAc-yue transclusions (and in case it isn't obvious, "Ill" (or "ill") in this case means "badly", as in badly-formatted IPAc-yue transclusions). Then I found a few missing template braces in the {{C-yue}} template. So try them now and let me know if they work like they should.  Paine  ^u/c 17:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Paine Ellsworth, Thank you very much for helping me to create these Template, and you will be considered “The Creator of These Template” because you have many knowledge about template, and when i try to create these template it doesn't worked, so the only thing i will say is thank you very much Paine Ellsworth. 愛耶穌 (talk) 05:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

To 愛耶穌: It's a pleasure! and thank you very much for your consideration! Truth is, this was a relatively easy fix because you had made only a few errors. I figured you had made the templates by using Template:IPAc-cmn or something similar. So I created the "yue" template sandboxes and copied the "cmn" codes to those. Then I just clicked on the "diff" links in the sandbox notices so I could see the differences. You should know that I found absolutely no errors in the {{IPAc-yue}} template, no not one. So the only few errors I found were in the {{C-yue}} template, and of course, the need for the {{Tone-yue}} template. So I really didn't do much, and I really think that you would have easily found the errors yourself if you had given yourself a little more time. The credit for the creations is all yours, my friend, and I hope that your continued experience on Wikipedia is all good!  Paine  ^u/c 05:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Pet page

Hello Paine. I'm not sure if this is documented somewhere: because you once moved a page on my watchlist to Draft:Move/pet page, every page you've moved from there since has also gone on my watchlist. I've removed it from my watchlist now, but I thought I'd point out the wider implications of using this system. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, zzuuzz! Not sure what to do about it except to note it in the round-robin move instructions. I used that method a little while ago at Djibouti (city) and am cleaning up after the page move. In this case it was especially necessary to use round-robin, because there was merged-article page history at the target page that had to be preserved; however, round-robin is used extensively now by page movers for move targets that normally cannot be moved by non-admins due to the more-than-one-edit-in-the-page-history technical restriction. First, I will raise this on the talk page of the closing instructions as soon as I finish the cleanup. Thank you again!  Paine  ^u/c 01:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The master of doing round robins is probably here, using a /Temp subpage for each individual page. I've no problem with the moves themselves, though I confess I haven't looked closely;) I'm not even too bothered by a growing watchlist. But this probably wasn't your intention. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I want to make sure I understand you, zzuuzz. When I move a page that you have on your watchlist to my Draft:Move/pet page, then my pet page is added to your watchlist? And after that, every page that I move from my pet page also goes on your watchlist?  Paine  ^u/c 08:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's the only reason I got to see the recent changes to Hera Pheri 3 and Djibouti (city) (among others). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Watchlists as the plot thickens!  Paine  

Problamistic User Uanfala

It had been extended edit war by Uanfala [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] .

• Despite nearly 10 Wikipedians not agreeing with his views on talk pages of effected Talk pages.
• He cherry picks and tries to define dialects in to Language.
• Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
• Wikipedians can not cherry pick.
• Wikipedians can not impose a point a view.
• Wikipedians move with consensus.
• Wikipedia is an informational project. It can not misguide about language hierarchy.
• Only standardisation of few dialects can not make them language. However few follow this rule for defining Hindko Saraiki Potwari as language. He cherry pick those.
• Even those "few" along with "opposite others" have details whether "Explicit" or "Implicit" which demonstrate a common hierarchy Language Family: Indo European, Branch: Indo Iranian, Sub branch: Indo Aryan, Macro Language: Punjabi, Language: Western Punjabi, Dialects: Potwari Hindko Saraiki and many others, Sub dialects: North Hindko South Hindko.
• All such linguistic sources are mentioned / added by many wikipedians.
• If we accept Uanfala version of "cherry pick" and "Defining" then we will end up with a dilemma mentioned by User Flipro on this move request for 30 odd Punjabi dialects [6].

Time to report User Uanfala for topic ban for Cherry picking, Forum shoping, Edit warring, ignoring talk page consensus on western punjabi diffrent dialect talk pages. Please you being a registered senior editor start the proceeding for Topic Ban and violation of 3Rs. 39.60.232.41 (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)₯€₠€₯

Thank you, IP 39+, for coming here to my talk page with this. Editor Uanfala and I have had our differences in the past; however, we have also had some important agreements, and I consider Uanfala a trusted editor. Also, I should mention that the honorific "senior editor" is not an official title on Wikipedia. All it really means is that I've been a registered editor for a good while. There is no special "weight" that comes with it. If you and other editors feel that you have been wronged by another editor, then the correct path would be to seek sanctions against that editor yourself. Others cannot do this for you on your behalf – you have to do it. Even though Uanfala and I have had our differences of opinion where the natural disambiguators "dialect" and "language" are concerned, I'm not so sure that I would be much help to you in a topic-ban discussion, since I am not experienced in such matters. I am essentially a WikiGnome who tries to avoid such areas. I hope that you and Uanfala can work through your quarrels in a positive manner, and that both of you come out satisfied and with a positive editing experience!  Paine  ^u/c 08:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit req. in harbour porpoise

Thank you for dealing with my earlier edit request in harbour porpoise. However, the next edit was problematic. "Black Sea" and "off Normandy" are separate entries in regions far from each other (i.e., separated by comma). Same with "Bay of Biscay"/"off Flanders" and "Little Belt strait"/"off Iceland". I added "off" in cases where the actual hunting site was in the ocean "off" the named land section (in some cases fairly large distances). This is in contrast to Black Sea, Little Belt strait and Bay of Biscay, which are names of the exact place (ocean) where the hunting occurred. I think this distinction is useful, but if you prefer you can remove "off" as long as the separation by comma remains. Alternatively we could change the "off-entries" to the adjacent ocean (e.g., off Normandy to English Channel), but I think it is better to stick to the exact places mentioned in the citations and changing relatively specific "Iceland" to very unspecific "North Atlantic" would also be problematic. Regards, 80.62.116.231 (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a poor interpretation on my part, and so  Fixed. It might be a little confusing with a mixture of phrase types; however, that might just be my problem. Others will come along and clarify if needed.  Paine  ^u/c 02:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Jim McAllister (Irish republican)

Hello Paine. I was thinking of closing the move discussion at Talk:Jim McAllister (Irish republican) which you relisted earlier today. By your relisting comment, I'm deducing that you favor dropping the 'Irish Republican' and using the nuances of spelling of the last name as a sufficient disambiguator. Can you tell me if knowing the complete set of page hits would influence your thinking? These are views in the last 20 days:

• Jimmy McAlister: 46
• Jim McAllister (Irish republican): 206
• James G. McAllister: 19
• James McAlister: 164
• Jim McAlister: 381

TOTAL: 816 views

To these should be added Jamie McAllister (463 for last 20 days) - a football player whose page was not included in the current DAB. If we deduce a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in the usual way, we want it to be sought out more often than all the other topics put together. When Jamie McAllister is included as a candidate, the Irish republican has 206 out of 1279 total views, which is a minority, and he is beaten out by both Jim McAlister and Jamie McAllister. So that would argue for not dropping the 'Irish republican.' What do you think? Thanks for any opinion, EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

To editor EdJohnston: When I come to a discussion like that one, I first look for consensus among the participants, and even though there were two supporters and the nom in favor of the move, the single opposer gave a superior argument in my opinion. I am not usually one to relist a request, but I thought that one needed more input. Your argument above would certainly add to the discussion if you were to be persuaded to !vote.  Paine  ^u/c 08:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for edit: Infobox aircraft occurrence

Hello, a tweak has been proposed for {{Infobox aircraft occurrence}}, that is the swapping of items 'Injuries (non-fatal)' and 'Fatalities', to make the infobox present the information in a more logical order (i.e. accident summary → number of fatalities → number of injuries). After a brief discussion, there are no objections, and I have already made in my sandbox what I believe are the required changes. Would you mind reviewing them and, if you are happy with it, update the template? Thanks. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

To editor Deeday-UK: Looks good, so your edits have been engaged and /doc has been updated.  Paine  ^u/c 02:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Hello there would you look into Talk:Physicist#Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2016 and [7]. The edit you made based on the request as if it was sourced from both https://www.aip.org/statistics/pie and http://www.aps.org/careers/statistics/bsprivatesec.cfm is wrong because the sources doesn't say them. The article is also under conflict due to content dispute mostly because the cited sources doesn't reflect as the added content in the article. Kindly do re-check your actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.89.236.93 (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IP 59+, and thank you for caring enough about Wikipedia to bring these concerns to my talk page! As you suggested, I did double check my edits and found that I relied on both the aps.org link, which in the pie chart shows "Computer or information systems – 24%", and a link from that page: "Physics Bachelor's Initial Employment", which shows the "military" (not just "Army") distribution. So I added (apparently re-added) the entry "Computing/Data systems" based on the source that is used in the article, and changed "(Army)" to "(military)" based on the linked page at that source near the bottom of the page. And again, that link is titled "Physics Bachelor's Initial Employment" on the source page. So you see, the changes that were requested by IP 51+ were correct and well-sourced. Thank you again for your caring concern!  Paine  ^u/c 17:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing the confusion with links. Can you provide that popping head in your profile and other presentation style guide links for wikipedia (Like the formatting done in Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics, the div style, User_talk:Paine_Ellsworth#VisualEditor_newsletter - the colors columns and such). Good day.59.96.166.198 (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It's a pleasure! The image can be found at File:Jimbo Peeking.gif. It will appear empty for a few seconds, and then in he will pop. Not sure what are "presentation style guide links for Wikipedia", though. Can you give me an example?  Paine  ^u/c 17:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand. The links you seek probably begin with Help:Tables. Learn the basics first, if necessary (sorry, but I don't know your level of knowledge), and then progress to the more advanced types. The way I learn such things is just by studying the edit screens of the presentation styles I find reader-attractive and useful. Let me know if I can be of further help to you!  Paine  ^u/c 17:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Link on redirect templates

Don't directly link pages on {{R from ...}} templates, use a interwiki link. While I've fixed my rdcheck tool, MediaWiki's WhatLinksHereAPI is still kinda broken (and will be considering how the usability fucked up file links). — Dispenser 17:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Come again? Dispenser, I learned quite some time ago that iw links are no longer required. Many rcats directly link to pages and those direct links then wind up on redirect pages, but there hasn't been a problem for many years until now. What has changed? It will be a lot of work to go back and iw-link all the direct links on all the rcats.  Paine  ^u/c 19:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking at the documentation again and I see you're right, they've added prop=redirect to the API. Sorry to bug you. — Dispenser 22:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

That's okay, truly! Just glad you discovered the API addition.  Paine  ^u/c 03:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Lakota?

Hello there, I was on your wonderful template code page that you had created showing all of the language codes to use for the [[{{r from other langauge}}]] template, but I didn't see one for the Lakota language. The code for Lakota is LKT. I would add that code, but it doesn't work when used with the template. So I was wondering if that code could be added to the template as well. Thanks a million NaturalAbundance (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, NaturalAbundance! All the codes on that page are used on redirect pages. As noted near the top of the page, that list is not a complete list of language codes, but only those codes used on redirects. Do you know of any redirects that are terms from or to the Lakota language? If so, then we can create the category as a subcategory of either Category:Redirects from non-English-language terms or Category:Redirects to non-English-language terms. Then the language code can be added to the list. Good to hear from you!  Paine  ^u/c 05:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I redirected Tȟašúŋke Witkó to the page Crazy Horse yesterday and the redirect is from Lakota. Thanks NaturalAbundance (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Great! So it's all done. See:

• Category:Redirects from non-English-language terms (for Lakota listing with other languages)
• Category:Redirects from Lakota-language terms
• Tȟatȟáŋka Íyotȟake
• Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect language codes#L (for language code listing)

 Paine  ^u/c 15:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Keep up the good work :) NaturalAbundance (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Pleasure! Paine  

DISPLAYTITLE conflicts on redirects

Hi Paine Ellsworth, I undid your {{Italic title}} assumption (for now). It was causing DISPLAYTITLE conflicts at ROCS Fen Yang (FFG-934) and ROCS Feng Yang (FFG-934). I am not 100% sure what the best solution would be... if the template is unable to handle these display changes, it might be best to handle these case-by-case, or introduce a parameter (like |Italic title=no) that suppresses changes. Anyway, just an FYI — Andy W. (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you,  Andy W. for reminding me of this! It was actually in the back of my mind when I engaged it, because I did it before at {{R from film}}. Your revert was a good call also because I had forgotten to exclude the rcat index as well. I introduced |3=noitalic to suppress auto-italics when {{DISPLAYTITLE:}} or {{Italic title|string=XXX}} is required. And the two redirects you linked above are fixed. Thank you again for keeping me straight!  Paine  ^u/c 17:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Cool. It's possible that some more will still be popping up. For example, I made another fix here. — Andy W. (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are a few user pages still in the category.  Paine  ^u/c 20:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The category is still slowly populating, but what do you think of these results here? I don't mind continuing to make some of these new noitalic corrections, but I still slightly question that the Rcat template itself should be in charge of controlling displaytitle instead of sacrificing this responsibility to the page itself. — Andy W. (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Andy W., all this has been  Fixed, including the pages in the category.  Paine  ^u/c 14:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, almost forgot – I introduced the Italic title in the rcat because a) all foreign language titles should be formatted in italics, and b) to do this individually for each redirect would take more time than I have left – there are literally tons of these redirects.  Paine  ^u/c 14:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Paine Ellsworth, okay that sounds fine, it was just a design/scope question, no hard feelings whatsoever :) I'll keep an eye out for redirects. And no worries about userspace/draftspace pages, I deliberately haven't fixed those, including ones that populate this and this Cheers, — Andy W. (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

One of the user subpages I fixed was reverted, and for good reason. Thank you for your work on redirects Andy W.! It would be easy enough and less time consuming just to add the italics with AWB; however, the language redirects need so much other work that I like to tackle them individually. So it's another pet project of mine to fix 'em all – the right way, and if I don't get to them all, the beauty of Wikipedia is that eventually, somebody else will. Cheers!  Paine  ^u/c 01:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Two years ago ...

mindfulness
... you were recipient no. 1315 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Gerda Arendt! Wasn't it just last year? Time goes so fast for me now.  Paine  ^u/c 09:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for being around! Alakzi still missing (but we email), Dreadstar dead, - wasn't the best of years, let's hope for the next. - Better news: by the power of the picture of the day (Eibingen Abbey, 2nd), I started an article (red link there) that was successfully nominated for DYK the same day, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The pleasure is all mine, Gerda Arendt, to be sure! and congratulations for your DYK nom!

 Paine  

Another approach

Perhaps we're barking up the wrong tree. Some Wikipedians want to change English rather than conform to our naming conventions, which say that we follow English usage rather than correcting it.

We have not beaten them, so perhaps we should instead join them. Rather than renaming our articles on NYS and/or NYC, would it perhaps be easier to rename the state and the city?

We could for example rename NYC Trumptown (pronounced "Trumpet Town", or Trumps for short). And to preserve Wikipedia'e bipartisan NPOV, NYS could similarly be renamed Hilarity.

Comments? (;-> Andrewa (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

PS As a songwriter myself, I have long considered Bob Dylan the BEST. Andrewa (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes! I do have a comment... I'd love to know more about your songs! (As for the fine words above your PS, I've been told that I have some difficulty with my "sense of humor". That may be because of what I learned while serving in Ethiopia. At the incoming Peace Corps briefing, we new volunteers were told that there were four "taboo" subjects we were never allowed to discuss "in public": race, religion, sex nor... politics. So if you and I were sitting in a pub enjoying a drink or three, we would probably talk (or sing) each other's ears off with ad libs about recent events. However, here on a public web page, all I will say is... no comment. ;>)  Paine  ^u/c 00:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I respect your wishes of course!

In the Peace Corps in Ethiopia (or anywhere but particularly there) that would be very good advice, and anywhere if in doubt. Even there cross-culture is a minefield... there are scenarios where it is very rude not to talk politics. And there are no-wins... my father was in one of those in the USA years ago, the only Aussie at a party in Washington DC and the conversation was dominated by discussion of past presidents, and he was being badgered for an opinion on who had been a good one... and in those terms, so it was implied that if he didn't answer it meant he thought they were all bad. I can't remember who he eventually chose, but it turned out not to be a good choice...! He always wondered whether there had been a better choice, or whether it was better to say nothing as the conventional advice goes, or whether it was just a complete no-win. But the world did not end.

But in rural France where I lived for a while I found it was ruder NOT to talk politics than to do so. Everyone talked politics! The two things that made me feel naive there were the wine and the politics. At the time we had what we though were some very new and sophisticated campaigns happening in Australia... well to us they were. One party had a particularly professional team at the State level. I quickly formed the opinion that compared to the French amateurs at local government level, our professionals were complete novices.

I was involved for a few years in teaching people going to cross-cultural situations. There are definitely some no-wins. The biggest conundrum we faced is that LAMP has made it possible to get people quite quickly to a stage of second language competence at which they can be mistaken for native speakers - if not of that dialect at least of a related one (for example my French got to be good enough that a German-speaking Swiss once accused me of being Canadian... even she knew I wan't French, but she did assume I was a native speaker of the language).

The problem then is, you may know the language, but you don't know the culture, and blunders that would be expected of a foreigner cause deep offence if you're taken for a local. If you have a solution to that I know some people who would be very interested.

Songs... I'm unrecorded as a songwriter as far as professional releases go (I do have some recording credits as a drummer). But I've written lots of material for "garage" bands in which I've played, some of which did get paid! Always had a day job myself but some of the other members were depending on it for their rent. Hoping to put my back catalog on Youtube one of these days. Most of my stuff political or religious or (at best probably) both... but there's the odd love song or nonsense song in there too. Only three real "protest" songs though, two quite recent and meant to be funny and both about Australian PMs... "Everyone's To Blame But Me" about Paul Keating and "The Non-Tax" about Julia Gillard. (There was a very early very bitter one "Say We Never Said It" about Vietnam and the draft.)

One of my more recent efforts is a thrash/rap version of Psalm 23

http://alderspace.pbworks.com/w/page/95665490/The%20Lord%20is%20my%20Shepherd

and there are some other lyrics (follow the links) but no chords or melodies up yet. Andrewa (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Michael Cox

Paine, thank you for closing the RM at Michael Cox (Catholic bishop). It was certainly an improvement to the previous disambiguation, but Michael Cox (bishop) is still problematic. It's WP:PARTIALDAB that until the move redirected to the dab page, as it's ambiguous with Michael Cox (archbishop of Cashel) (who's far more historically significant). Even with hatnotes, it presents a confusing setup for people reading the titles in the search bar, incoming links, or Google. Could you re-open to consider the other options that were suggested? I don't see a lot of objection to Michael Cox (independent bishop) or Michael Cox (independent Catholic bishop).--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It was indeed a pleasure to close that one! That was a special case having been open so long, nearly eight months. You even entered the RM at the admin board to be closed – and now you want it re-opened? Since it has been so long, I would not be averse to a new discussion to garner consensus for a better article title, and I have gladly added that info to my closing statement. Since that particular RM proposed a title that you and others found less than ideal, it would serve no purpose that I can see to reopen such an old and somewhat undesirable proposal. Thank you for coming to my talk page to help resolve this matter!  Paine  ^u/c 14:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm really asking you to reconsider your closing decision, as I think it was the wrong call. I imagine that another lengthy RM or move review discussion is in our future if the page is left where it is, due to the WP:PARTIALDAB concern I mentioned above.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, two things... in my humble opinion, the consensus in the discussion leaned toward support of the proposal, which is the main reason for my closing opinion. I also noted the presence of the existing hatnote, which appears to be enough to help readers find what they need. I could be wrong. I understand how the other M. Cox, the archbishop, is more prominent than the subject of this RM; however, that M. Cox is disambiguated by his latest title of "archbishop", so please forgive that I don't see the problem you raise with the partial dab essay. To me it was a case of moving from an unnecessary disambiguation to a title that was approved by consensus. Granted there are probably better titles that were suggested in the RM; however, I'm always a little careful with such things, since that is usually when the most people disagree with my decision. I see my decision as an improvement over what it was, so I think a new discussion, either an RfC or an RM, is probably in order so as to garner consensus for further improvement.  Paine  ^u/c 16:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's definitely an improvement, as it's at least not misleading as the older title was. I'll start another RM later to settle the disambiguation issue.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Paine Ellsworth. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Oleh Sentsov

In the move discussion, there is clearly no consensus for move, and most, if not all arguments for move are not policy-based. Given this is a non-admin close please unclose and move everything back. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, Ymblanter! Please take a step back, read WP:CONSENSUS again if necessary, and then explain to me how two support !votes plus the nom's against your one oppose !vote (3:1) with the stronger arguments made by the supporters do not constitute consensus on Wikipedia? Consensus is clear, and if you still disagree, then let me invite you to take advantage of your options.  Paine  ^u/c 12:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

We have one oppose, one comment which is essentially oppose, one support whuch is not policy based (and my argument was not refuted), and one lengthy support with a lot of arguments essentiually "I like it to be moved does not matter what". Please explain me how this is consensus for the move, and how does the non-admin closure could be applied to this case. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

And I fully disagree that the support arguments are stronger, but you did not even care to analyze them, otherwise you would beed to deal with WP:COMMONNAME. In any case, this is not a discussion for a non-admin to close.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I agonized over this one for hours, then I made my decision. I realize that you are strong-minded about this subject; however, I am an experienced page mover and must insist that your disagreement either be lived with, as all of us have done at one time or another, or be taken to Move review to let it be sorted out for you. Thank you again, and have an exceptional day!  Paine  ^u/c 13:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

It is just not up to non-admins to close this. Fine, I will take it to the Move review as an obviously erroneous close.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Admins have helped me a lot over the years, and now they are quite overwhelmed. This was the oldest requested move in a long backlog list. Just tryin' to help.  Paine  ^u/c 15:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Move review for Oleh Sentsov

An editor has asked for a Move review of Oleh Sentsov. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Ymblanter (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Jasper Tsang#Requested move 19 October 2016

Can you undo the move on all three pages, revert the closure, and then let me vote? I was unaware of this. --George Ho (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi George, and thank you for coming to my talk page! With all due respect, I must ask you to again look at the dates. That RM was proposed on 19 October 2016. After being relisted twice, I came to it on 18 November, about a month after it was proposed (RMs are only supposed to last seven days). And now a week after that, you ask that all the work and cleanup be undone so you can participate? Where were you during that five-week period? According to your contributions page, you weren't far, having made about a thousand edits during that time. And may I ask, what rationale would you add to the discussion?  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 18:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I was too busy and didn't have enough interest to come to WP:RM. However, I looked up the pages and found them renamed without my knowledge. Also, the proposer did not notify others who previously participated in the past RMs. And I would vote "oppose" on removing "Raymond". I could vote either "Neutral" or "weak oppose" on removing the transliterated name for Jasper. I will explain later in the discussion if it is reopened. George Ho (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Almost forgot, can you also revert the moves back to what they were? George Ho (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I can understand, then, how one may get too busy on Wikipedia and not notice it when someone proposes to rename one of their watched pages. The system of move requests is not perfect, but it usually works well. Under the circumstances, and while I sincerely would like to accomodate your wishes because I deeply respect you as an editor, I have to lean toward the continuance of the requestor's proposal. I would like to ask you to, for the moment, put yourself in the shoes of the editor who requested these renames. If you had been the proposer, and you had waited a month rather than seven days for a decision, and your proposal had gone unchallenged for that entire month, so the decision was to rename the pages as you had proposed, how would you take it if the closer returned, reopened the request, and just so another editor could, after nearly six weeks and two weeks after closure, come in and overturn the original close? How would you take it?  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 00:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll leave "Jasper Tsang" alone for now. However, before the change to "Jasper Tsang Yok-sing", someone else proposed the change from "Jasper Tsang" to "Tsang Yok-sing". One voted the Chingrish name, so it's closed as that. However, I worry about someone else ignoring the past RMs or not aware of those RMs. "Jasper Tsang" is not much of a thing to make a big fuss about, but the subject himself may not be well known. Perhaps the name needs move-protection, but I don't mind "Jasper Tsang" for now... unless someone else disagrees. Removing "Raymond" from the names, on the other hand, is more of my concern. Doing so may not help readers much, but someone else thinks the transliterated names are well known. Like Tsang, the other two may also not be well known to general audience. As someone who proposed using "Raymond" and transliterated names as combined titles, I wouldn't take it well. However, if reopening the discussion is impossible, maybe I'll propose reinserting "Raymond" on both subjects soon. --George Ho (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

You have my thanks and my wishes that you garner consensus. Happy holidays!  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 20:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

• News and notes: Arbitration Committee elections commence

• In the media: Roundup of news related to U.S. presidential election and more

• Blog: The top fifteen winning photos from Wiki Loves Earth

• Gallery: Around the world with Wiki Loves Monuments 2016

• Featured content: Featured mix

• Special report: Taking stock of the Good Article backlog

• Op-ed: Fundraising data should be more transparent

• Traffic report: President-elect Trump

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Chan Chi-chuen#Requested move 28 November 2016

You contributed to Chan Chi-chuen. I invite you to the latest RM discussion; please help improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

USgamer Rcats

USgamer

Thanks for removing "to article without mention" after it ceased to be factually accurate. However, what makes this redirect unprintworthy even though it would be widely separated from its target in a dictionary?

I assume that the question of lexicographic distance is overruled by the fact that USgamer lacks notability independent from its parent entity Eurogamer, a situation which we formerly called a "redirect without possibilities." Am I understanding correctly?

Is there a more specific Rcat which would be appropriate to express the unprintability? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

To editor SoledadKabocha: Always a pleasure to remove a redirect from CAT:RAW. Generally, I consider most subsidiaries as not needed in a printed version, since they are usually mentioned in the main article, and most people who would be interested in the subsidiary company would probably know and search for the parent company's name. Remember, though, that notability of a subject is not a requirement for it to title a redirect page, that is, redirect titles are not necessarily notable. I switched from {{R from related topic}} to {{R from subtopic}}, which is also a non-specific printability. If you think that this subsidiary would be useful in a printed version, then by all means, you should make the redirect printworthy.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 07:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know that notability does not apply to redirects in the same way as for normal articles. My point when I brought up the no-longer-existent {{R without possibilities}} was that it used to categorize redirects as unprintworthy, and the inability to expand a redirect into an article is sometimes a problem of notability. Anyway, I'd have to think for a while before making further changes. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

To editor SoledadKabocha: I don't know, I've been working on rcats since 2009, and the only one I remember that actually specified "without" possibilities is {{R from highway in region without possibilities}}, which is still perkin' away. I'm getting old and probably missing something. :>)  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 23:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I had remembered incorrectly; apparently {{R without possibilities}} had never existed, if the emptiness of the deletion log is any indication. I had looked at the category but not drawn the right conclusion; I should have checked the log first. But I digress. My point was that if such an Rcat existed, it might be applicable here. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The "highway in region" rcats indicate that your point is valid. As the system of rcats exists right now, one can apply {{R with possibilities}} to redirects that might be shoe-ins to become articles, and if that rcat is not applied, then a redirect "may or may not" have possibilities. I would think that the vast majority of redirects are without possibilities, so it would keep us very busy if we created {{R without possibilities}}, would it not? For those many redirects that actually "may or may not", there could be a different rcat. Boggles the mind. I guess we must ask ourselves: is there a definite need? is there an editor or a bot that will track the entries? and so on. I know that some editors work from Category:Redirects with possibilities to find articles that may need to be written. Do you think there is a need to turn Category:Redirects without possibilities into an active entry list instead of just a container cat?  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 14:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

←

I'm not of a mind to make such a drastic change now. If I ever change my mind, that's a discussion for another place and time. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The King's University Edmonton, Alberta, Canada logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The King's University Edmonton, Alberta, Canada logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 00:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk page of redirect

Hi Paine Ellsworth. You recently updated Talk:Bones and Talk:BRDC Formula 4 to include {{Talk page of redirect}}. These seem to be appropriate edits (because Bones and BRDC Formula 4 are both redirects), however both Talk:Bones and Talk:BRDC Formula 4 are displaying the message "ERROR: This template is only for use on talk pages that are not themselves redirects. If this message is visible, then this page is a redirect, and this template should be removed." and are included in Category:Pages with incorrectly transcluded templates. Do you know why this is? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I noticed this on one of my watched pages. Seeing nothing obviously wrong I purged the page and it fixed it, and it worked on the above two pages too. No idea why that is needed as normally saving the page after a change does the same thing.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! DH85868993 (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

To editors DH85868993 and JohnBlackburne: Thank you both for your help! I've been working to clear the unsynchronized talk page redirects category, and sometimes the software doesn't seem quick enough to deem the page "not a redirect" after an AWB change. A page purge or a null edit would set things straight. Thanks again!  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 21:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

DRN

Please visit dispute resolution notice board and participate a debate on saraiki dialect of Punjabi language which is poorly written by Uanfala as a separate language ignored RFC decided consensus. AksheKumar (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

• Year in review: Looking back on 2016

• News and notes: Strategic planning update; English ArbCom election results

• Special report: German ArbCom implodes

• In focus: Active user page filter prevents vandalism and harassment

• Op-ed: Operation successful, patient dead: Outreach workshops in Namibia

• In the media: In brief: Coverage of gender gap initiatives, banner fundraising, and more

• Featured content: The Christmas edition

• Technology report: Labs improvements impact 2016 Tool Labs survey results

• Traffic report: Post-election traffic blues

• Blog: Wiki Loves Monuments contest winners announced

• Recent research: One study and several abstracts

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Saraiki requested move

Hi, you're welcome to comment in the move discussion taking place at Talk:Saraiki dialect. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 03:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Uanfala, can you provide a more specific link? I'm unable to find a new move discussion on the Saraiki dialect talk page. I have noted that the DR volunteer who closed that discussion thinks that Saraiki should not be called a "language" in the Saraiki dialect article, though.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 10:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm.. the link above is piped straight to the discussion, I don't know why you aren't seeing. Have you tried clearing your cache? The RM seems to have been blanked at some point [8] and then restored [9] 10 minutes five hours later. – Uanfala (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

That piece of vandalism seems to have lingered for five hours, that seems to have been the reason you weren't seeing it. – Uanfala (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Paine and Uanafala. For the record, the discussion was indeed blanked here, and I restored it again. Having another RM may or may not be out of process (it's unclear, because the MRV decision said that the previous RM fell somewhere between no consensus and consensus not to move). An independent admin may decide to speedy close it if they feel it is no justified at this stage, but certainly having an involved party blanking it is out of process. Personally I feel it would be good to try to discuss this again and hopefully get a bit more independent and well sourced view point on the issue. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you should consider that the MR closer's comment applied to the MR, not to the September RM decision, Amakuru. The December RM is definitely out of process, since there has been no substantive change in circumstances since the endorsed Not moved decision in October.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 12:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Saraiki dialect

Sources that say it is a dialect. [10], [11], [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20][21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] List of non-sock user who opposed Move to Saraiki Language in earlier discussions or in article history changed first line to a Punjabi dialect. User: SheriffIsInTown User: Peeta Singh User: Kwamikagami User: Paine Ellsworth User: RegentsPark User: Robert McClenon User: Filpro User: Cunard User: Shemaroo User: Ser Amantio di Nicolao User: JorisvS

Proposed edits to comply with RfC consensus & Dispute resolution

• Title : Saraiki dialect
• Leade: Saraiki (سرائیکی Sarā'īkī, often spelt Siraiki/Seraiki) also known as Southern Panjabi or Multani is a Punjabi variant spoken by 10% of Pakistan’s population. It belongs to Western Punjabi (Lahnda) group of Northwestern Indo-Aryan languages Saraiki is hotly contested as mere a dialect of Punjabi or separate language. While regarded by many as a dialect of Punjabi . it has supported a movement to claim for recognition as a separate language. Saraiki is to a high degree mutually intelligible with Standard dialect of Punjabi and shares with it a large portion of its vocabulary and morphology, while at the same time in its phonology and important grammatical features in common with the Sindhi language spoken to the south.. It is spoken by 20 million people in the province of Punjab, southern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and border regions of North Sindh and Eastern Balochistan in Pakistan. Multani is a "dialect" of Siraiki in the same way that Siraiki is a "dialect" of Lahnda, which is then a "dialect" of Punjabi, which in turn is a "dialect" of Indo-Aryan. In this sense both Siraiki and Standard Panjabi are "dialects" of a "Greater Punjabi" macrolanguage.

• Dialect section: to be renamed as "Subdialects" and rewritten as "The sub dialects tentatively proposed for Saraiki  : are Central Saraiki, including Multani, Sindhi Saraiki, Southern Saraiki of Rajanpur and Rahim Yar Khan Districts. Eastern Saraiki which is transitional to Standard Punjabi, Northern Saraiki, or Thali of the Thal Desert. The dialects tentatively proposed for Saraiki by ethnologue are Bahawalpuri (Reasati, Riasati), Derawali, Jatki, Multani (Khatki). The name "Derawali" is used to refer to the local dialects of both Dera Ghazi Khan and Dera Ismail Khan, but "Ḍerawali" in the former is the Multani dialect and "Derawali" in the latter is the Thaḷi dialect.

Pageview stats

The count from the "redirect views" tool is the total number of views for a given page and it includes those coming from redirects as well as those for the exact title. – Uanfala (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Kautilya3 (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my talk page, Kautilya3. I see you've also been overly nice to me on the admin noticeboard as well. I have guidelines and closing instructions that have been assembled through community consensus to back up what I've written. What do you have? You may treat that as a rhetorical question, because I intend to revert to my gnomelike ways and forget about this whole thing. Happy editing and... New Year, too!  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 19:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

a new type of redirect template

I just came across something I hadn't seen previously at Kernel (mathematics). Thought you might want to consider whether {{Wikidata redirect}} might be worth bring into line with the other types of redirect templates. older ≠ wiser 15:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

To editor Older ≠ wiser: Yes, the template's a year old, so it's time I figured out what to do with it. It's an interesting cross, sort of, between a hard and soft redirect type of template, placed on hard redirects to link to a sister project. I'll see what I can do. Thank you for spurring me on!  Paine  ^u/c 04:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

To editor Older ≠ wiser: An update... I have worked on the {{Wikidata redirect}} template to bring it up to speed. Let me know if you have any other concerns about it.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 06:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

A quick question about redirect categorization

Hey, I noticed that you categorized a redirect I made, at USA at the 2016 Summer Olympics. I really appreciate it. Anyways, I wanted to ask about your categorization. I'm pretty new to this, and actually to wikipedia in general. I'm considering making many similar redirects (different years), and categorizing old ones. Why is it categorized as Redirects from short names and not just Redirects from initialisms? Thanks, Tamwin (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a good question, Tamwin, and thank you for asking! In a case like this, I use both the initialisms and the short name rcats because the title is a combination of the two. If it were just "USA" redirected to the "United States" article, then "R from initialisms" would be enough. In addition to that, the "USA at the 2016 Summer Olympics" title is a shorter form of the target's title.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 09:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Another question. I just created USA at the 2016 Olympics (using your rcats), before stoping to think about it. Do you think I should make them in both styles, or only the first one, or for all that matter only in the second style? Most of the existing ones appear to be in the first style, with one exception. Redirects are cheap, but I don't want to make things cluttered. Thanks, Tamwin (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a pleasure! I'm glad to help. Not including "Summer" puts the redirect into an "ambiguous" state. See your target, United States at the 2016 Summer Olympics, and also the article on United States at the 2016 Winter Youth Olympics. Which should be the target of your new redirect? The answer might be "both" unless one target is the primary topic. Redirects can have only one target, so rather than create redirects that can have more than one target, it is usually better to be as concise as possible without being too concise. So how we create a redirect depends on what we think readers are trying to find and how those readers might type in the title they are seeking.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 20:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Redirect error at Talk:Geospatial

Geospatial redirects to Geographic data and information, a stub with no talk page. The talk page used to read "#REDIRECT Talk:Geospatial analysis" until you placed an error template there. I followed both instructions that you left to no avail, so now I'm alerting you per request. User:HopsonRoad 15:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about this, HopsonRoad! It seems to be fixed in my browser. The only red I saw was the talk page link, which meant that the talk page of the target did not exist. I started that page with an appropriate project banner, so the link has turned to blue.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 09:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@POTUS listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect @POTUS. Since you had some involvement with the @POTUS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, CHAMPION, for letting me know!  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 09:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation redirects

I see that you work with redirects and Rcats a lot, and when I saw this edit, I thought I'd give you a heads up, because I'm sure it won't be the last of these you run across.

Any redirect with " (disambiguation)" in the title is created to be used for deliberate links to the matching dab page (in hatnotes or "see also" sections). If the dab page doesn't exist any more, and if there are no other dab pages that it could reasonably redirect to, the page should be deleted. (I use CSD G6—housekeeping).

Happy editing! — Gorthian (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gorthian, and thank you very much for bringing this to my talk page and for your continued interest in the categorization of redirect pages! This is a case where I have yet to analyze the validity of using Hmong as a WP:PTOPIC redirect to Hmong people. When I came across this challenge in September, it was a busy time, and rather than delete the dab redirect I temporarily redirected it also to the "people" page. It still awaits my analysis and disposition, and I will get to it as soon as possible. As an aside, I am presently involved with a requested move discussion at Talk:Saraiki dialect where we are deciding if the bare Saraiki page title should be the title of (or redirect to) the Saraiki people or the Saraiki dialect articles. Again, thank you for coming!  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 09:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Completely understood. What a kerfuffle around Saraiki!

On a completely different subject, what the bleep...? — Gorthian (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

To editor Gorthian: yes, the Saraiki dialect and some other lect pages are politically charged subjects these days. Not sure what your bleep is about – I had added a secondary TOC for that section and decided to put in a link to the next section (alphanumeric listing) is all. What is it that you're questioning?  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 15:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This is how that edit appears to me: . And the result: .

I forget how much different browsers and systems can vary in display. (Though it wasn't just me.) — Gorthian (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Point well taken. I have ridded the TOC of the symbol and have used text instead. Thank you again for your help with rcats and the rcat index!  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 01:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

To editor Gorthian: an update... I worked on the Hmong page and decided to turn it back into a disambiguation page, since there is no primary topic among the "Hmong foo" choices. That of course resulted in retargeting Hmong (disambiguation) back to "Hmong". Best of everything to you and yours!  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 10:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Collapsing discussion

I'm really sorry for bothering you again, but I wasn't sure I understood whether you minded some of our discussion getting collapsed? I was thinking not of the procedural one (that is closed now), but the one after Kautilya3's !vote, where we go on and on about footnote #3 and the pageviews. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't you consider those pertinent? They are about whether or not "Saraiki" is an ambiguous title, and since one of your proposed options is the bare Saraiki title, I don't think it would be in the best interests of your argument to collapse them. I could be wrong.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 00:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I just don't see them as relevant – they all clarify various misunderstandings that probably aren't going to arise for other people reading the discussion. But if you consider them pertinent, we should leave them (no big deal here). – Uanfala (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You are a bravo

Man I know you are from some good family background. I respect you a lot. Please use new source given by DXawar and flaws in Tariq Rehman. The reason I have been beating them since 2012 is that I have genuine sources, local knowledge and I concentrate on flaws in their arguments. Allah has given us a beautiful power of locating flaws in evil argumentation of ego hit bad minds. When we believe in our self and use this power then whole world can not beat us. I am a very succesfull person in my life and reason is self belief and Gods help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.60.132.215 (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, IP 39+! Of course I will look into those sources; however, please don't get your hopes up too high because I appear to wield little influence in that discussion. Editors seem to be almost savagely bent on breaking the rules and going against community consensus, and there appears to be little that I can do about it. It may take divine intervention to open their eyes, and yet the dialect vs. language debate is so intense and ongoing that there may be little anyone can do to change the outcome. We'll see.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 16:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Deleted text in question
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose move to Saraiki Assalam u Alikum everyone. I was invited here on 14 November 2016 post by this face book page https://www.facebook.com/Punjabi-Language-Dialects-139940776185766/?fref=ts&ref=br_tf . I am a university professor on comparative linguistics. Me neither Punjabi nor Saraiki but I followed this interesting discussion. And now I have made this account. I could not add my views due to 4 days 10 edit protection. If you allow me now I can give a balanced view. Everyone have a right to not agree with me. Filler party & Co emphasise Tariq Rehman source. In that source author writes (Rahman1995, p. 16) "the Siraiki call it a language in its own right." This means , Saraiki is used for people. Noting that this is the source which filler is over relying. Even in local Pakistani envoirnment we call Punjabi, Sindhi, Pathan, Balochi, Saraiki (for Punjabi/sindhi/Pashtun/Balochi/Saraiki peoples). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DXawar (talk • contribs) 08:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC) − − Oppose move to Saraiki Language per status of Full Fledge Languages in Atlas of the Languages and Ethnic Communities of South Asia, Roland J. L. Breton, Punjabi is ‘’the language’’ heading Saraiki. This geographical atlas constitutes the first systematic presentation of the spatial and quantitative characteristics of the distribution of languages in the seven countries of South Asia. This atlas enables readers to actually see the geographical location, extension, and linguistic affinities of any of the numerous languages spoken in South Asia by combining and comparing language data from various national censuses. Part I introduces the reader to the relationship between language and the complex ethno cultural structure of the subcontinent. Professor J. L. Breton stresses both the importance of and difficulties in analysing the vitality of South Asian language groups and examines the similarities and differences in language use and various ethnic traits among similar population groups. The second part-which comprises 60 plates along with supporting text-is devoted to graphically analysing various aspects including regional distribution of language and ethnic communities; the relationship between language and race, tribe, caste, and religion; the main linguistic minorities; and ethno-political factors. Atlas of the Languages and Ethnic Communities of South Asia, Second Edition is an indispensable reference and resource tool to academics, students, and researchers interested in linguistics, geography, cultural studies, reference, anthropology, ethnology, and political science. − Page 3 The Indo-Aryan Languages By Danesh Jain, George Cardona also reaffirms list with saraiki under Punjabi language speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DXawar (talk • contribs) 08:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Honest job man. You are unbelievable. Now it is time to restore pre-dispute version of Saraiki dialect [29] in the light of Dispute resolution decision i.e. Revert all Language edits, Saraiki is a dialect as per RFC. [30]. For leade you can add further sources like [31], [32], [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41][42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]. Best wishes for your great family. Yor are most fair person here. SALUTES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.73.215 (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, IP 182+! I hope to address this issue in the near future; however, I doubt that the POV pushing by the other editor is over. I shall look at the sources you've given above and will make my best evaluation of them. Thank you again, and please follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in the future, because it takes much more than just being right about something, it also takes adherence to encyclopedic procedures. Be sure especially to read and follow this important policy. I try to give the benefit of the doubt, and yet if an editor is correct but does not follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, that just makes it harder for those of us who do. Best of everything to you and yours!  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 17:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

• From the editor: Next steps for the Signpost

• News and notes: Surge in RFA promotions—a sign of lasting change?

• Interview: What is it like to edit Wikipedia when you're blind?

• In the media: Year-end roundups, Wikipedia's 16th birthday, and more

• Featured content: One year ends, and another begins

• Arbitration report: Concluding 2016 and covering 2017's first two cases

• Traffic report: Out with the old, in with the new

• Technology report: Tech present, past, and future

• Recent research: Female Wikipedians aren't more likely to edit women biographies; Black Lives Matter in Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@POTUS listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect @POTUS. Since you had some involvement with the @POTUS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

OMG most awesome welcome thing

IDK if you manually added that [to my talk page] or if a bot did, but I like it. As somebody who wants to help wikipedia and originally felt overwhelmed by the insane amount of help pages all jumbled over the place, this is a nice quick-links page to useful information... with nice and friendly smilies =). Thanks! Feel free to delete this message after you read it, to clear up space on your talk page, I won't be offended.

Popcrate (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a pleasure, Popcrate! and rather than delete posts on my talk page, I prefer to archive them after awhile. Hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia as much as I do, and Best of Everything to You and Yours!  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 10:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Old friend

Your old friend is now trying new fancy things. [50]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.191.48 (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

CSS styling in templates

Hello everyone, and sincere apologies if you're getting this message more than once. Just a heads-up that there is currently work on an extension in order to enable CSS styling in templates. Please check the document on mediawiki.org to discuss best storage methods and what we need to avoid with implementation. Thanks, m:User:Melamrawy (WMF), 09:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

• Arbitration report: WMF Legal and ArbCom weigh in on tension between disclosure requirements and user privacy

• Special report: Wolves nip at Wikipedia's heels: A perspective on the cost of paid editing

• News and notes: Official WMF rebuke to Trump policy; WMF secures restricted funds

• In focus: WMF strategy consultant brings background in crisis reputation management; Team behind popular WMF software put "on pause"

• WikiProject report: For the birds!

• Op-ed: How to make editing workshops useful, even if participants don't stick around

• In the media: Presidential politics, periodic table, and our periodic roundup of updates

• Technology report: Better PDFs, backup plans, and birthday wishes

• Traffic report: Cool It Now

• Featured content: Three weeks dominated by articles

• Forum: Productive collaboration around coordinated protest marches; Media and political personalities comment on Wikipedia at its 16th birthday celebration

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

John O'Hara POV

Hi Paine, Glad to see you're working on the John O'Hara page again. Could you take a look at the Talk page where I added some comments yesterday? First, I congratulate you on making the page more readable - the old version was a lot clunkier. Then I identify four sentences dating from January which arguably push the boundaries of WK POV.

I like your approach, which is broadly positive about O'Hara, but feel that occasionally your enthusiasm takes over... I could tweak these passages myself, but really would much rather you did it - you clearly know more about this author than I do, and can perform the necessary balancing act. Thanks, Bry Brymor (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Brymor – I linked to the page in question, "John O'Hara", and find myself totally in the dark. I have no memory of ever editing that page, nor does the history show that I've ever done so. Are you confusing me with someone else? (Don't feel too badly, as I've done this before, myself.)  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 22:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Cram101

You added references to Cram101 to List of phobias. However, Cram101 is not reliable and copies information from Wikipedia then paraphrases it. I suggest checking the entries you'd used Cram101 to support (e.g. variations of "barophobia") to see if they can really be verified. Fences&Windows 20:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fences&Windows – thank you very much for the heads up! There was nothing to indicate that Cram101 had copied Wikipedia in this case; however, if their usual course is to copy and paraphrase Wikipedia, then perhaps they should be blacklisted. In any case, there are numerous sources for the material on barophobia, the fear of gravity, such as this one at New York City's School of Visual Arts. Is that one a good source in your opinion?  Paine Ellsworth  - put'r there – 05:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Cram101 are definitely never reliable, they just crib from elsewhere to produce incoherent "books". As they are on Google Books they can't be blacklisted, and though an edit filter may be possible when I requested this several times for the similar Alphascript after getting consensus... and nothing was done. A list of such sources is in WP:PUS, with some searches to find them. Occasionally, I and others do a trawl to remove them.

That new source is a Master's art project, not a good source for psychiatric diagnosis. Barophobia appears in lists of phobias dating back at least to the 1970s, but as a real name for a real phobia in medicine I'm not finding much. PubMed draws a blank, Google Scholar tells us "Most bacteria are barophobic in that their growth is inhibited by pressure" - quite a different meaning. I did find G. Stanley Hall: A Study of Fears. The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Jan., 1897), pp. 147-249, which says "without any suggestion of a new morbid entity, it would be convenient to have a term like barophobia for the gravity fears". Full text available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/1410940, though I've not accessed it. Should this list of phobias perpetuate poorly attested fears or poorly attested names for fears? Fences&Windows 08:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Fences&Windows – I agree that "no" is the correct response; however, I wonder how many others in the list perpetuate poorly attested names for phobias? In any case, I have removed "barophobia" from the "B" list and placed it in the "G" list as "Gravity phobia". And to support the entry, I've included both your source and my second source just to give readers extra information about the phobia. Your source has very interesting details about gravity phobia as well as other phobias. Thank you for that! Feel free to improve upon the entry as you wish.  Paine Ellsworth  ^{put'r there}  23:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Rcats

Hi Paine. Would you mind adjusting rcats to the redirect Iron Lady? Great job by the way, on all the work you have done with the redirects and such. Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 23:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, could you add Iron Lady (disambiguation) as a hatnote, as well please? Thanks again.--Nevé–selbert 00:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, Nevé–selbert! All is complete – I used the merge rcat per JFG's post near the top of the AfD discussion, and therefore the "with history" rcat was not needed. I also included the printworthy rcat and the hatnote. Thanks again!  Paine Ellsworth  ^{put'r there}  07:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

• From the editors: Results from our poll on subscription and delivery, and a new RSS feed

• Recent research: Special issue: Wikipedia in education

• Technology report: Responsive content on desktop; Offline content in Android app

• In the media: The Daily Mail does not run Wikipedia

• Gallery: A Met montage

• Special report: Peer review – a history and call for reviewers

• Op-ed: Wikipedia has cancer

• Featured content: The dominance of articles continues

• Traffic report: Love, football, and politics

• Blog: WikiIndaba 2017: A continent gathers to chart a path forward

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

US Presidents navbox

Greetings Paine! In the "last-ditch effort" poll at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 February 7#Template:US Presidential Administrations, you wrote "Merge drafts are simply too busy and hard for our readers to navigate." Well, certainly a lot of them are, and this discussino has suffered from an excess of choice. But have you looked at the latest Draft:US Presidents navbox, which was built with input from several participants? It looks much clearer to me than the existing boxes {{US Presidents}} and {{US Presidential Administrations}}. Hoping you might reconsider. Kind regards, — JFG ^talk 23:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi JFG, and welcome! I would agree that the latest draft of the merge is the best of several; however, I still think the templates should be kept separate, and I think the date ranges are not needed at all. (On a peripheral note, I would have named the merged template, Presidents of the United States and their administrations).  Paine Ellsworth  ^{put'r there}  00:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. There was ultimately no consensus to merge, however I have applied the more legible column styling to {{US Presidential Administrations}}; hope you like it. Good day, — JFG ^talk 05:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, JFG, definitely better than before.  Paine Ellsworth  ^{put'r there}  05:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Starfire (DC Comics) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Starfire (DC Comics). Since you had some involvement with the Starfire (DC Comics) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  ONR  (talk)  20:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you,  ONR  for this notification!  Paine Ellsworth  ^{put'r there}  06:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

A potential area for improvement

Hello Paine, I hope you are and have been well since our last Wikipedia interaction. Today, after editing this redirect, I noticed the page was segregating to both Category:Printworthy redirects and Category:Unprintworthy redirects. It seems to nullify the productive potential of this categorization scheme when a redirect page can populate them both, simultaneously, but I may well be missing something? I am interested in knowing your thoughts to these regards. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello John, and thank you for your well wishes! Just had a little surgery and am recuperating nicely. And you? Hope you and yours are also doing well. What you have missed is fairly subtle and non-critical. The printworthiness should be one or the other, never both. That is why some of the rcats have "gone soft" and can be changed from one state to the other. The Lamont Sanford redirect is an example of {{R with possibilities}}, which is always auto-printworthy (hard), and {{R to anchor}}, which is auto-unprintworthy by default and can be changed to printworthy with the first parameter (soft). Also, for future reference, {{This is a redirect}} has been deprecated and replaced by the {{Redirect category shell}}. Best to you!  Paine Ellsworth  ^{put'r there}  18:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this reply, and for your well wishes too! I reviewed the changes you made to correct these matters and will be more diligent in following its example. I'll also ensure that I discontinue using the deprecated template. I still believe we can do better for I've an inkling there may be many pages similarly situated in both categories and no good way to otherwise know of their existence. I will see about working up some changes to later purpose. Thanks again.--John Cline (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Converting deprecated redr to rcat shell

Thanks for your good work! Figured you might like to know that I'm trying to help out a little in converting those old {{redr}}/{{this is a redirect}} templates to rcat shell. Who knows, we might see all of them converted before the end of the decade... AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, AWNH, for your good work! It's always good to hear that someone is helping with any part of redirect categorization. I've been thinking about including a category with This is a redirect and a warning that can be seen in Show preview. The discussion is here. Would appreciate your thoughts on this.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  20:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) As to the discussion, will take a look at it and see if I can't leave a response there. I'm also categorizing Lepidoptera redirects, but I've been doing that for a while now. There's, ah, very, very many of them (no clue as to the exact amount, but I am certain its a number with six digits. 's what you get, when a wikiproject's two most prolific article-and-redirect creators are both in the top ten of mainspace page creators, or the top four of non-bot mainspace page creators...), many of which are not categorized, or only have {{r from move}}, so that I'll be doing for a fair while still.

On a related note, ever get the feeling that dealing with these kind of tasks gets your feeling for what's 'large scale' a bit out of whack with the rest of the 'pedia? :P Because I find myself staring at the screen in puzzled confusion for a minute or two every time someone refers to a task dealing with a couple hundred articles as large/massive before I realize that just because I keep ending up working in parts where four-digits is "well-doable" and three-digits is "a small task to do in between other stuff", the same doesn't go for most others. XD AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

All redirects that are both in Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names and Category:Redirects to monotypic taxa (presuming, at least, that AWB didn't skip out on some while making the list...the larger categories can be finicky to get full lists of) either use separate redirect templates (a handful of them) or, if they were using deprecated templates, have been converted to Rcat shell. :) Couple hundred of them (~250), so it doesn't make a huge difference on the total, but it's progress. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, thank you so much, and I've responded on the template talk page.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  08:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Starfire (DC Comics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Starfire. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• It was not unintended – it is an incomplete disambiguation and should target the dab page.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  11:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

...beware, there be rambling here (Questions, ideas and a brainstorm alert!)

Hey again. Was wondering, were WP:WikiProject Redirect and WP:WikiProject Templates notified of redr's deprecation and/or asked to help with conversion? If not, might help some. At utter least, it would make more folks aware of the deprecation; at best, we might get a few more hands willing to dedicate some time to converting redrs to rcat shells.
Also, do you figure the WP:Signpost might be interested in a small piece about redr/rcat shell? Maybe a short part about the history/development of redr and rcat shell, a summary of the reasons redr was deprecated in favour of rcat shell and a call for hands in helping convert stuff? Again it'd help the word get out there at utter least and at best may net us some more folks to help.
Brainstorm alert: Was also wondering, what do you think of the idea to organize a little contest geared towards converting the templates? For the sake of a custom barnstar or similar wikilove reward. Say, in May or so. Would allow us the rest of March to brainstorm and organize things, April to advertise the contest, get sign-ups and adapt/clarify based upon feedback and questions and May to actually hold it. Provided we actually get some interest, could help make a big dent in the transclusions.
Also figured I'd let you know I have a nifty little userscript—custom written for me by the lovable Writ Keeper—that I've found to be quite helpful when dealing with redirects. It basically treats every redirect as though &redirect=no is appended, saving me a lot of clicks when doing redirect-work from categories, links in prose or AWB-lists dumped in userspace. (It does have some limitations. Redirects from the topsearch dropdown are still followed; the article tab at the top of the page next to the talk tab still follows redirects through to the target when clicked & it of course does nothing for off-site links. Still, it helps for most other places where Wikipedia doesn't already automatically do so—What Links Here comes to mind as one of those places where Wikipedia already does so on its own.)
Downside is that when using a redirect for its actual purpose—getting redirected somewhere—it adds another click. (Still, the couple of extra clicks of those cases certainly don't weigh up against the many, many clicks saved, in my experience) I imagine you may find it helpful as well, since you do even more redirect work than I do. That is, provided you don't have something similar whipped up yourself already. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

To editor AWNH: the idea to deprecate redr and replace it with the rcat shell is a fairly new one, and there are editors who really liked redr (I was one of them). I could come across a redirect, check its history for a move or merge or both, tag it with redr and appropriate rcats, all in just a few seconds, because I was so used to using it. Since I was not alone in liking the better format of redr over tagging with individual rcats, that's probably why I have been taking things slowly. And I suppose I figured that due to a growing interest in categorizing redirects, it wouldn't really take that long to convert to the rcat shell just by leaving it to manual conversions. I could be wrong, but I avoid bots and even AWB because redirects often need more than a bot or AWB can be set up to do. Maybe another rcat or two, perhaps a printworthy/unprintworthy rcat, or maybe an incorrect rcat needs to be removed. Not sure about The Signpost idea, since redirects have never been brought to the forefront of Wikipedia that I know of. They have always taken a backseat to article creation and other more visible aspects. Could be tried, though. Good brainstorm! And I want to encourage you to have more of them and to follow through on the ones you like. I've always been pretty much of a behind-the-scenes editor, so whatever you may need in that capacity and I'll try to help. I very much like user scripts that help make editing easier! My latest find is a template script that places links in the left margin of an edit page, links that position full rcat names into the edit screen, so they don't have to be typed in. Saves me a lot of time, even moreso than using shortcut templates.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  23:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I'll readily admit I was fond of Redr as well, but when it's deprecated, it's deprecated and there's no use whining about it. Besides, the reasons for replacement with Rcat shell are sensible enough, so instead of loudly clamouring how much I'd miss redr and didn't want a change, I settled on "-frown- Now I need to get used to a different template again. -pout, sigh- Oh well, let's get on with converting 'm, then".

I don't do bots either. I do use AWB but only for the purpose of list-making, really. Of course, some of my manual editing borders on MEATBOT (though carefully stays within the rules; no disruption, no larger number of errors much less non-self-corrected errors than one'd expect from someone editing more slowly--I don't like dramah) with the speed and frequency I can reach, especially when I go looking for pages needing the exact same change rather than a large number of pages needing a change. Long as I'm careful enough to keep an eye out for unexpected needed changes, template-parameters only visible in the source and similar, and make sure to visually confirm the bunch of recent edits to fix mistakes should I have made them, I can keep up fairly high sustained speeds and really high peak-speeds. For some of my easiest and most repetitive stuff, it's not like I would actually be faster using AWB anyway...and while I would be faster through AWB when it comes to more varied tasks, I much prefer to not do it at breakneck speed when working from a mixed list or on a mixed issue. As to what bots and AWB--especially well-supervised AWB--can do, though—quite a lot, but the time it takes to either set everything up to account for every possible variation or manually verify entire lists is probably not worth it when it's a task where there actually are folks willing to slough about doing it manually. The 'making the edit' part of "check, verify needed change & convert" is the fastest/most minor part of converting them anyway. I'll admit that I'm mostly just converting what is there except when I happen to notice more changes are needed: I'm not going out of my way to look for them. (That's a different task. One I'm also doing, at least for Lepidoptera, but I prefer not mixing them too much lest I start dreaming of pairs of curly brackets with redirect template names in between. Or should that be, dreaming again? I totally haven't had a nightmare before where a troll went behind my back and undid all the r from alt scientific name tagging I had done in a month before. Nah...that'd be silly.)

There's a lot that doesn't get brought to the forefront of Wikipedia or even the editors' side of Wikipedia. Sometimes that's a good thing—there's folks managing to actually get into protracted multipage edit-and-move-wars over friggin' punctuation, after all—but it does mean that on some jobs we're eternally down to a handful of editors holding the fort. (And then folks wonder why some people start growing slightly OWNerish over basic infrastructural stuff...it's sometimes hard to keep that feeling out when you know that on some issues it's a. you that fixes it, here and now; b. you that fixes it, some undetermined point down the line or c. likely going to remain unfixed for a few years at the least, if not ever. Makes me hit the bunk every now and then, to be honest. It also plays a role in why I ramble so much here and at a few other folks' talks. It's not like what we're doing is going to ever get acknowledged or the frustration understood except by the couple folks in similar positions anyway. Better vent on a user talk every now and then than bottle up frustration, I guess. If I'm rambling/ranting/whining too much, though, just slap me down, I'll fully understand.)

I'll keep a look at the speed at which we're getting the transclusions down. If current speed keeps up, there's little use in setting up additional ways of getting folks to help because by the time we've got them worked in, the task is about to be done anyway, and spending my time converting stuff is then likely to be more efficient than spending time setting things up. (...you know you've been gnoming and working in neglected areas too much when your response to handling six-digit-numbers with a couple of folks starts looking more like 'wow, I'll actually be not alone dealing with this? Great, this is something we can deal with with a handful of people!' than like 'dear gods that's about one in every twenty pages on en.wiki ' XD) Might still drop a quick note at the two wikiprojects I mentioned, though, we'll see. But worth keeping an eye on, as I fully expect the speed to drop down seriously once the easier-to-convert stuff is out of the way and we're left mostly with infrequent combinations and massive combinations. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello again!

I'm drafting up some stuff in my userspace in regards to the redr-conversion effort. Would you mind taking a look at User:AddWittyNameHere/redr/usernote and User:AddWittyNameHere/redr/projectnote? (The former is just a basic quick usernote I can subst: and then sign (and possibly add some info between the substed part and the signature when/where needed; the latter is the first draft of my proposed notification to the wikiprojects redirect and template). Guide mentioned in the latter isn't written yet; I'm collecting info and will write it out into full prose later. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

To editor AWNH: So sorry, not feeling well the past few days. Yes, that all looks very good. I've posted similar messages to user talk pages when I come across recent usages of Redr.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't apologize, your health comes first. I've been remarkably busy IRL the past few days myself anyway. I'll see about developing that little guide mentioned as well, might be helpful. You worry about getting better first, 'k?AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Transferring articles from Gaelic-language site

I was looking for an article about Henry Whyte (d. 1913), a Scots Gaelic writer who used the nom de plume Finn (Fionn). I found an article in Gaelic at this URL: https://www.wikiwand.com/gd/Henry_Whyte_(Fionn). It is available in English at <https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=gd&u=https://gd.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Whyte_(Fionn)&prev=search>. However, I do not find it in the English-language Wikipedia. How does one go about entering that article on this site? (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

To editor EDGRC: There is a redirect, Henry Whyte to a disambiguation page. You would want to use that redirect to create an article, since there is no need for further disambiguation on enwiki. There is a guide that can help you with the transformation from gdwiki to enwiki: Wikipedia:Translation. I used that guide to translate an article from Italian. Please don't hesitate to ask if more help is needed, and thank you for coming to ask!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Just a note!

There is a 15-month old underconstruction template at the top of Template:Under construction with your username noted as the last to edit it. The article is locked, so I couldn't remove it. I thought you'ld like to know.——→StephenTS42 (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, StephenTS42! Actually, that's just the "example" that shows what the template would look like on a page you're editing. It only shows me as the most recent editor because I made a change to it as the result of an edit request on the talk page. Just so you know, I am also a veteran and once went through all the "withdrawals" of being stationed in battle zones. You just get through it and get clear. That's my sincere hope for you, and thanks again for coming to my talk page!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  18:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

PS. I have altered the template so as to make all this more clear to all editors. Thank you for the inspiration! PS added by  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there