User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26

Wrong template

Hi User:Paine Ellsworth, i saw you edited my RM affixing the template WP:FORUMSHOP. I had started since then an ANI on the user who asked you to move it back to the discussion page where it started, so i didn't have the time to address you personally on the matter. I did the RM because I was advised to do so by a "technical admin" (he says in the ani he's not actually an admin) in this comment "you should start a Requested Move discussion on the talk page by following the steps at WP:RSPM". He confirmed that twice: in this comment and on the ongoing ani. I put up the RM and also wrote in bold characters about it here, on the project's talk page we were discussing. So forumshop accuse is false. I therefore am asking you to remove that template and WP:MULTI too, from the above mentioned talk page. Thank you. --Opencross (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, editor Opencross, and thank you for coming to my talk page! Well, you got me. Wait, no you don't. It was another editor who collapsed your RM with this edit. And someone else must have moved it back to the WikiProject talk page as well. All I did was to fix that RM (it was on the malformed RM list) and then place a "pointer" under your collapsed RM. I did go ahead and remove the MULTI reference that I had added. So sorry for the mix-up, and thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 19:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Strange edit

I've no idea how this edit happened; I can only assume some "finger slip". I'm not aware that I was even looking at your talk page. Strange. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

To editor Peter coxhead: well, two edits, so it looks like it was a rollback slip. No harm done. While you're here, what do you make of the request at Template talk:Taxonomy/Streptophyta#Template-protected edit request on 10 June 2022? I see that Jonesey95 already answered it. I thought it looked a little squirrelly, so I thought I'd ask you what you think. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 06:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Re Template talk:Taxonomy/Streptophyta#Template-protected edit request on 10 June 2022, it's a classic case of a new editor picking one source and trying to use it to replace a consensus system (in this case for classifying angiosperms). It's well meant, but misguided. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Peter coxhead, that's very helpful! And waytago, Jonesey95! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 12:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Callout goes to...

Hi, i see you closed the RM here not even 12 hours after i notified the Sport project of the discussion and invited them to comment on the WP:titlename policy involved. What do you suggest i'll do about that? Taking the discussion on Sports' talk wiki page? Open another section on tennis' talk page, or i cannot do either of those since the RM is closed. I'm a bit confused on that, because i didn't expect the discussion to be closed that soon (even if it's a relief on the other hand, for reasons you can easily guess). Cheers. --Opencross (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, editor Opencross, and thanks again for coming! Yes, that RM was listed in the backlog. If it had not had a consensus, then it could have been relisted. Perhaps there can be further informal discussion to try to continue to garner consensus for a title change? I don't know what would work. I do know that the only reason we suggest not immediately reopening a new RM in these cases is because it usually just angers editors and would likely be unsuccessful anyway. Sorry if the closure took you by surprise. RMs are usually open for a minimum of seven days, and that RM was open for about ten days, which is why it was in the backlog. Maybe you could try again after a period of time has passed. The longer you wait, the better chance the RM has to succeed. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 14:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

June GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2022 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the June 2022 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since April 2022. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

Blitz: of the 16 editors who signed up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, 12 completed at least one copy-edit, and between them removed 21 articles from the copy-editing backlog. Barnstars awarded are here.

Drive: 27 editors signed up for our May Backlog Elimination Drive; of these, 20 copy-edited at least one article. 144 articles were copy-edited, and 88 articles from our target months August and September 2021 were removed from the backlog. Barnstars awarded are here.

Blitz: our June Copy Editing Blitz, starting at 00:01, 19 June and closing at 00:59, 25 June (UTC), will focus on articles tagged for copy edit in September and October 2021, and requests from March, April and May 2022. Barnstars awarded will be posted here.

Progress report: As of 07:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 209 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 1,404 articles.

Election news: Nominations for our half-yearly Election of Coordinators continues until 23:50 on 15 June (UTC), after which, voting will commence until 23:59, 30 June (UTC). All Wikipedians in good standing (active and not blocked, banned, or under ArbCom or community sanctions) are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Tenryuu

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Malaysian Malay(s)

Hi Paine Ellsworth! I want to clean up the old links to Malaysian Malay before the page was moved to the plural form. Going through the present backlinks of Malaysian Malay, I have noticed that many articles only have a link to that page via Template:Austronesian languages, after you fixed Malaysian language to Malaysian Malay. Is there a way to filter the template links out in Special/WhatLinksHere, so that I will see only those pages where Malaysian Malay is actually linked in the page source code? –Austronesier (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Austronesier! Thank you very much, as I've been doing just that. It's a little tedious because the only "filter" I have is to bypass the obvious languages. When I get to a page I do a search for "Malaysian Malay" on the edit screen. If I get a zero count I know I'm on a page with the lang template. I usually get a one or two count and fix those links. There are less than a thousand links total, so it shouldn't take too long, especially if we work together. Suggest that you begin at the end on the second page of 500 and work backward, because I'm almost finished with the first page of 500. We'll meed somewhere in the middle of the second page, okay? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 20:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Almost forgot, on the zero count pages there might be one of two templates under "Demographics" that contain two links that need to be fixed, so if you see those, just bring them up on a separate tab and fix as normal. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 20:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Another suggestion: what about temporarily restoring the redirect Malaysian language in the template, to make sure we won't have to open too many false positives during the cleanup phase? I still want to look into the language articles, since we might miss a "real" link there that is actually intended to go to Malaysian Malays. –Austronesier (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
If you think that would help then yes. Just be sure to change it back when finished so it will benefit from being highlighted in boldface type on its language page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 22:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Requested move/end

Template:Requested move/end has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Mellohi!, for the heads up! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 20:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello Paine Ellsworth,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000[a] at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.[b]

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 12404 articles, as of 04:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders
  • Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
  • If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
  • To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Notes
  1. ^ not including another ~6,000 redirects
  2. ^ The number of weekly reviews reported in the NPP feed includes redirects, which are not included in the backlog we primarily track.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Claire Danes RfC

Hoping you can elaborate a bit more on your close given BLP policy and selective sourcing concerns were raised. Slywriter (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Certainly, and thank you for coming to my talk page, editor Slywriter! There was a significant majority of editors who appeared to think that the current version was in line with current WP BLP policy, as well as with the reliable sources. While other arguments in the discussion were strong and compelling, none were more compelling than those from supporters of the current version. That version is succinct and to the point, and as much as I consider Danes to be one of the greatest actors to grace the business, I have to think that she has long-since moved on from this unfortunate experience. And while we all learned a good deal from her performance in Brokedown Palace (one of her very best!), it must be true that Danes learned a lot from her total experience filming that great struggle. I think my first time falling for her was when I saw her profound performance in To Gillian on Her 37th Birthday. And I've watched her blossom and grow into one of the most interesting figures in film acting. The incident in which she got on the wrong side of some Filipino politicians just stands as an important learning experience for her, and I'm sure she did learn and grow from it. Thanks again for your help to improve this encyclopedia! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 23:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good. Page off my watchlist. Was only there for the BLP concerns, no strong feelings about her one way or another though she is an excellent actress. Now to tackle some issues with BLPCRIME :) Thanks and happy editing Slywriter (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
my pleasure! Paine  01:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Closure of Talk:Prikaatinkenraali#Requested move 8 June 2022

Hi, I'm rather confused by the no consensus closure of the MR at Talk:Prikaatinkenraali#Requested move 8 June 2022. This is a Finnish language term, and Finnish language sources are crystal clear that the proposed new title is the correct modern spelling. Looking over the participants' comments, there are two !votes supporting the move (the proposer and myself) and none that are clearly opposing it. - Ljleppan (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ljleppan, and thank you for coming to my talk page! A long-accepted practice when closing page moves is that formal opinions in bold are not required, because these discussions are not just a !vote, the deeper layers of editors' rationales are the really important parts that closers must understand and use to determine consensus or no consensus. There was enough informal opposition in that survey to render a page move unlikely until reliable sources are added to the article, which would strengthen it profoundly. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 13:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
The supporting !votes provide three reliable sources demonstrating that the modern term is, indeed, the proposed move target. Neither the article nor the opposing comments link any sources that would contest this. Ljleppan (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, I did take a look at those sources, but could only get full translations of two of them, the library and the Defense Forces website. I was unable to translate your source, a .pdf file; however, while it seems to be a reliable source, it also appears to be a primary source, as is the Defense Forces website. The library is the only secondary source, and would be useful on the article page, since it can be easily translated to English. But that's only one secondary source, and the article could do with several more if they can be found. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 14:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm failing to see how the sourcing of the article is the driving force here. As for some of the sources being primary, I would imagine "this official document by the Finnish Defence Force listing the ranks used by the Finnish Defense Force says that the rank used by the Finnish Defense Force is spelled as 'prikaatikenraali'" is pretty much exactly what WP:PRIMARY#3 means. Not linked in the discussion, because I thought this sufficiently obvious without it, here's also the relevant law also saying it's 'prikaatikenraali': [1]. Finally, I see you're not mentioning the Helsingin Sanomat article linked in the discussion, which 1) uses the proposed spelling and 2) even finishes by saying Asetuksessa muutettiin myös kieliasua. Prikaatinkenraalista tuli prikaatikenraali., transl. [The new Decree] also changes the spelling. Prikaatinkenraali became prikaatikenraali. Ljleppan (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Didn't mean to imply that the two primary sources couldn't be used. They can be used; however, care should be taken with them, because they need secondary sources to support them. And looks like I was wrong about the library. I looked it up, and it is actually a "tertiary" source rather than a secondary one. So secondary sources are desperately needed for that article. As for the driving force, the source issue was the main opposing issue in the move request's survey, and it was not fully and properly addressed by supporters of the rename, specifically the final post by Dr. Vogel. Forgive me, but there really was no consensus in that debate survey. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 14:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
As you are refusing to acknowledge the provided secondary source that supports the move, and the complete lack of sourcing that opposes the move, I see further discussion is pointless and I'll take this to move review. Ljleppan (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
That is your choice, of course; however, please remember that no secondary source was provided in that move request. There were two primary sources and one tertiary source provided. Perhaps a reread of WP:OR would be helpful? That's especially important for issues like this where there may be indirect WP:BLP concerns. And no hard feelings, Ljleppan, as I have had to weather move reviews more than just a few times. Best to you! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 15:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
The linked Helsingin Sanomat article is a secondary source. Ljleppan (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Didn't take it into account because I'm unfamiliar with its viability as a reliable source. Maybe you can enlighten me? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 15:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
It is the largest Finnish national newspaper. You can find further information from the Wikipedia article Helsingin Sanomat. Ljleppan (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that is impressive. Let me ping the RM participants to see if I may have been too hasty? To editors Onsilla, Dr. Vogel, Rotideypoc41352, Ljleppan, Dekimasu and JIP:, Spekkios as relister and Amakuru as the contested TR notifier. Since we now know that there is a reliable secondary source that can easily be translated to English (this edition of Helsingin Sanomat), does this satisfy for changing the spelling of Finland's word for "brigadier general"? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 16:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Part of the problem in the RM is that one participant wanted to sort out the lack of sourcing in the article, to give more ammunition to the notion that the page should be moved. It was also suggested that it could be either merged into brigadier general or moved to brigadier general (Finland), as it's seemingly a straight translation of a commonly used English term. I would probably favour one of those last two options myself, and those deserve consideration. Ultimately it might be a case of WP:NOGOODOPTIONS though, it doesn't look there's any firm suport for the status quo. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For reference, here's my draft of what I intended to post at move review:

The closer bases their close as no consenus on a lack of secondary sources in the article, ignoring both secondary and authoritative primary sources listed in the discussion in support of the move. No opposing sources (primary or secondary) were provided by any of the participants.

This move request is about moving the article about the Finnish equivalent of a brigadier general from a historical and outdated spelling (current title, prikaatinkenraali with an extra n) into the official spelling used since 1995, prikaatikenraali (note missing n). The move discussion includes several authoritative primary sources from the Finnish Defence Force that explicitly state that the spelling is indeed the proposed move target (see 2017 Finnish General Service Regulations (YLPALVO 2017) page 10, § 22); FDF list of generals and admirals; the army conscript magazine; p. 24, last column). A linked article from the largest Finnish newspaper Helsingin Sanomat also explicitly states in a 1995 article that "[The new Decree] also changes the spelling. Prikaatinkenraali became prikaatikenraali." (transl. from original Finnish "Asetuksessa muutettiin myös kieliasua. Prikaatinkenraalista tuli prikaatikenraali.)" No sources are provided in opposition of the move.

Further primary source evidence in support of the move (not listed in the discussion) include the The Presidential Decree on Military and Service Ranks and the Symbol of the Finnish Defense Forces which states that the rank is spelled as in the proposed move target.

Even further secondary source usage of the proposed move target over the current title in reliable Finnish newspapers and magazines (not mentioned in the move discussion):

Further official sources using the proposed move target (not mentioned in discussion):

- Ljleppan (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that! What are your thoughts about Amakuru's advice to consider either merging the article into Brigadier general or renaming the article Brigadier general (Finland)? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 16:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
The merge can be discussed in a separate merge discussion. As for using Brigadier general (Finland), I would oppose it based on the fact that it breaks the pattern used by the majority of the Finnish military officer rank articles: Kenraaliluutnantti, Kenraalimajuri, Prikaatinkenraali, Eversti, Everstiluutnantti, Majuri, Kapteeni, Luutnantti. As I mentioned in the original discussion, I'd be happy to have a larger discussion on either standardizing the whole of the Finnish rank article names, or preferable a more general discussion also extending to other languages, e.g. German, Swedish, Estonian etc., later. In the meantime, the title of this specific article is obviously wrong, and as per WP:NOGOODOPTIONS: there are situations where multiple names have been proposed and no consensus arises out of any, except that it is determined that the current title should not host the article. [..] In these difficult circumstances, the closer should pick the best title of the options available, and then be clear that while consensus has rejected the former title, there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. In my view, fixing the current spelling rectifies an immediate and local problem with minimal wide-spread effect. The more wide-spread problem (if there is any) can then be discussed further in more detail, perhaps at WP:FINLAND or WP:MILHIST. Ljleppan (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Please feel free to move my comment elsewhere if it disrupts the threading of the comments, but I agree with Amakuru: there is consensus to move but not to where, i.e. the Finnish-language term or the English-language one? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

It's alright where it is, Rotideypoc41352, and since it's an outdent, I've labeled it as such. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 17:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

It's become painfully obvious that this needs more discussion, and since my talk page probably isn't the best place, I will ask that editors return to the previous venue, where I will cancel my closure and relist the move request. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 17:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Technical news

  • user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Follow up on moves of Hong Kong MTR articles in January 2018

I notice that all the articles for MTR lines in Hong Kong got moved to articles which decapitalise the word line. For example, Tung Chung line instead of the Tung Chung Line.

I am aware the Wikipedia naming conventions state that subsequent words in titles should not be capitalised, except for proper names.

I would argue that MTR lines are all proper names, so the article should be titled 'Tung Chung Line' instead of 'Tung Chung line'. I am not sure what the convention is in other places, but at least in Hong Kong all government documents and MTR publications capitalise 'line' in them because line is a part of the name. [30] [31]

In the relevant discussion for the move request, some people state that 'Tung Chung line' would be correct as this is how Hong Kong news outlets write it, but this is not the case unless it is written as 'Tung Chung MTR line'.

As a rail enthusiast in Hong Kong, seeing the incorrect capitalisation, even if it conforms to English grammar rules, is really annoying. KeepElephant (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, KeepElephant, and thank you for coming to my talk page! The move request that asked for that particular article to be moved can be read at Talk:Disneyland Resort line#Requested move 6 January 2018. Notice that all the articles were chosen because they had the capitalized "Line" in the title, and all of those titles were changed to lowercase "line" by consensus of the editors that WP:NCCAPS (naming convention guideline), MOS:CAPS (style guideline) and likely WP:TITLECON (explanatory essay), along with their various levels of community consensuses, apply to those article titles. You might also note that this was not the only move request to decapitalize "Line", nor have they been only for moves of Hong Kong MTR articles; other RR lines have also been decapped. There were several requests before that, and there have been several requests since then. In every case I've seen the consensus was to decapitalize it to "line".
Of course it is within your power to open a new move request at any time to argue that the Hong Kong MTR articles should include "Line" as part of the proper noun phrase (proper name); however, it would most likely not succeed against past consensus. That's just my opinion; I could be wrong. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 05:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I see. I am new to Wikipedia and the instructions to make a move request aren't that clear. I would still argue that at least in Hong Kong "Line" is most certainly part of the proper noun, but it will be best to stick to Wikipedia's guidelines.
Would it be okay to keep the title as "-- --- line" but have the word line capitalised within the article or will this violate any rules? KeepElephant (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
To editor KeepElephant: on Wikipedia using lowercase is also called "sentence case", while uppercase is also called "title case". Usages of "line" should remain in sentence case in the titles and throughout the content of the articles. Anything else would confuse readers, and here on Wikipedia readers come first. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 16:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Theoretical Derivation of fine structure constant is not crankery

The physical explanation of how the low energy fine structure constant has been derived is included in the post. Also explained on talk page. Work is published. Please engage in a physics discussion instead of removing content. Please state your technical objections and why did you call it crankery? Totally unfair, malicious and unacceptable. Physicsenduser (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

To editor Physicsenduser: you appear to be refering to this edit to the Fine-structure constant article? As we see, that edit was made by a different user, an IP user. I did not revert your edits. The next edit, the one where you reverted the IP, is called "edit warring" on Wikipedia. Be careful with that, because too much of it can get you blocked from editing this encyclopedia. Since you're apparently new here, much can be forgiven. Please read WP:BRD. In a nutshell, you made a bold (the "B" in "BRD") edit that returned material to the article, which had been previously removed as "crankery". Your edit was reverted (BRD), and that is when you should have gone to the talk page to discuss (BRD) the situation. Please do not edit war. If you want to edit Wikipedia, that's great! However, Wikipedia is a collaboration of staggering proportions, and it cannot be done right if editors do not at least try to get along. Here's to many long years of your editing this awesome reference work! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 18:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

ER stalled

Hi. The IB musician edit request we both worked on is now open for some weeks while no development is (no doubt or dispute) exists. Looks like other TPE-editors are avoiding it because of "something is going on"-smell. To break this ban, could you please post a nihil obstat there to refresh the request? -DePiep (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, DePiep, you were right about the tainting. It is done. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 12:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks (& no apo's needed, this is regular flow). DePiep (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Capital attack charges

Can you clarify the reasoning behind this revert? I'm aware that normally we don't move pages when they are subject to a page move discussion, but in this case it's the parent article that's under discussion and the move/no move discussion of the article family is not impacted by correcting "charges" to "proceedings." VQuakr (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Welcome editor VQuakr, and thank you for coming to my talk page! As we read in the bot notice at the top of the page, articles undergoing move request discussions should not be renamed during the discussion. Moving that page caused the article title to become a redirect and malformed the move request. That is why the page move had to be reverted. All is well now, so suggest patience to see how the move request commences. When it is over it would be better to discuss any further page move proposals on the article's talk page to give other involved editors a say in the matter. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 06:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Can you clarify where the move request appeared malformed (since, again, there was no actual move request for this page)? Most would consider this one uncontroversial I think. VQuakr (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm certainly happy to clarify this for you, VQuakr!:
  • The move request at Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack#Requested move 28 July 2022 was disrupted when the article at Criminal charges in the 2021 United States Capitol attack was moved before that move request was closed.
  • When that article was renamed, its title became a redirect, and as explained at WP:RMCI#Malformed requests, a redirect cannot be a current title in a move request.
  • Shortly after that move request was opened, the RMCD bot placed notices at the top of all the articles in that move request to inform editors that those articles should not be moved while the move request is still open and in progress.
  • The RMCD bot also placed notices on the talk pages of the articles involved in the move request.
  • While "most" editors might consider that page move to be uncontroversial, it is very controversial to move a page that is being proposed to be moved in a formal move request.
  • Editors are asked to wait until an open move request has been closed before they take any action to move a page that is proposed to be renamed in an open move request.
  • So to move a page while that page is still being proposed to be renamed in an open move request is considered to be a form of disruptive editing. Why would any editor want to edit disruptively? Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 08:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not following. You're just repeating rules, not explaining why this edit was actually problematic since it doesn't impact the ongoing move discussion. Did a bot list the page as a "malformed request" somewhere, or did you just happen to have the page on your watchlist anyways? Do you think the status quo title better describes the contents of the article? VQuakr (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
No opinion on the quality of one title over another. I do see that there is but a small section in the article about "proceedings" and a scan of the article does show that it is primarily about charges and prosecutions of the charged defendants. Maybe a tough call I guess, I don't know.
Yes, the RMCD bot caught the change from article title to redirect, and I monitor the bot's output. And of course that most certainly did impact the ongoing move discussion, since your page move turned the title into a redirect. There is good reason why the notices are plastered on the articles and their talk pages by the bot. Hopefully you get that. Sorry if you can't see it; however, it's important that formal RMs are not disrupted by interim page moves of involved articles. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 10:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Ok, so the missing piece here was updating the ongoing move discussion; thanks for clarifying. Ideally you would have fixed that or alerted me so I could fix since we WP:ROWN; there's a reason the bot prints a report and doesn't just revert this sort of thing. NBD, ultimately. Thanks for trying to help. VQuakr (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Fatima

Hi Paine. Thanks for closing the discussion at Fatima. However, I was quite surprised you found consensus that the daughter of Muhammad is the primary topic. Three main pieces of evidence were provided: pageviews, Google books and wikinav stats. Of those, two (wikinav and Google books) clearly show the Portuguese place ahead of the person. Most of the readers that landed on Fatima dab page then clicked on the Portuguese place. Now, they will be sent to the wrong article. Could you please reconsider your close? Thanks. Vpab15 (talk) 09:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the PTOPIC args forwarded by you and two other opposers were compelling. They made the closure a very close call even though there was a lot of support for those renames. Believe me, that wasn't lost on me, and I spent quite a bit of time agonizing over that. However, it was time to close it, backlogged as it was and with what could only be called a rough consensus to move, again in spite of the extensive editorial support. There is a distinct possibility that another closer would see it differently. Honestly don't know, and yet in my mind I did and still do see that rough consensus to make those page moves. Thank you very much for coming to my talk page, editor Vpab15! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 10:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth, you've been here long enough to know that closures of even moderately long and contentious discussions require a reasoned closing statement (one that summaries the arguments in the discussion and explains the actual reasoning that led to that particular close, and not just describes at length how much the closer struggled or how grateful they are to everyone for partipating).
Vpab15, I don't believe Paine Ellsworth is likely to substantially reconsider their close, so I think it's best to eventually take that to MRV. Uanfala (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
We all know that discussions are not a vote, but in cases like this it is especially important. Only page watcher of the person and the dab page were notified of the discussion. Watchers of the Portuguese place weren't. With the same arguments and evidence, if both sides got roughly the same number of !votes, would you have closed it the same way? If not, that might be an indication that there is no consensus. Vpab15 (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
You're asking that I compare apples and oranges, editor Vpab15. It is what it is, and it's not what it's not. And it's not a case of "roughly the same number of votes", which is an entirely different type of situation that would require an entirely different method of judgement. Sorry, no way of telling how that would turn out... unless it had actually happened that way, which it did not. I've gone back over it and I still see consensus for the page moves. So sorry. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 11:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I've been here long enough to have been through many MRV's most of which have upheld my closures. I've also found that the less succinct and concise a closing statement is, the more likely a closer becomes subject to accusations of super!voting.
As I think can be found above in my response to editor Vpab15, I have already "substantially" reconsidered my closure of that RM. It is within your purview to either accept and acquiesce or disagree and do whatever you think is right. As is usual with these tough calls, "no harm, no foul" either way. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 11:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I believe that if an editor gets regularly accused of supervoting, then they should probably either fundamentally reconsider how they close or just stop closing, not stop providing closing statements.
I somehow find myself thinking about one particular closing strategy: always go with the head count (so that those who are pissed off at the close are always in the minority) and never give meaningful explanations (partly to avoid spending a lot of time reading the discussion, and partly to avoid showing any misunderstandings of argument or misapplications of policy that criticism could latch on to). Uanfala (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
As always, you are entitled to your opinion. I've come to find that closing concisely, and then furnishing a more in-depth explanation on my talk page if necessary, has served best. Supporters' args were fairly strong in policy and guideline cites, and so that did help to tip the scales a bit. And there were some compelling rebuttals made to the no PTOPIC arg as well. There... you see how it begins to sound like a super!vote when I go into detail? Such seems to be more okay on my talk page than in a formal closing statement. YMMV. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 12:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Move review for Fatima

An editor has asked for a Move review of Fatima. 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. Vpab15 (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

National Historic Sites of Tanzania

Many thanks for helping create the and appove the template for the above, one more request could you reflect it so it says "of" Tanzania instead of the "in" Tanzania in the bordered template approved deisgantions. The page had has been moved to reflect that. Thanks for all you do.Halidtz (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

my pleasure! Paine  07:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The above discussions are not archived. Editors can continue to participate and discuss any topic above.

Pollution sidebar?

I noticed your work on the pollution sidebar, thank you. I have some concerns about it though because I feel that this pollution sidebar has been added to too many articles. For example I don't think it fits for industrial wastewater treatment and waterborne diseases. I also have my doubts if it should be at wildfire and ozone as they are more than just about pollution. Even at microplastics I don't think it fits well. It's a very large sidebar and takes up a lot of space and reader attention. I find it quite distracting and a bit annoying, especially when sections are expanded. I would suggest to only have it on articles that are clearly about pollution directly (such as water pollution), not for articles where the connection is indirect. Otherwise you could whack it onto so many disease articles, like lung cancer, gastroenteritis and so forth. (should I rather move this discussion to the talk page of the pollution template? Not sure.) EMsmile (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

It's my pleasure to help out with templates of any kind. Came across {{Pollution}} (a navbar) and the sidebar and found they needed a little work. Then I started checking sidebar articles to find the sidebars all thus far with their appropriate sections collapsed, so I am expanding those sections. Most of the articles I've found that were about pollution only as a subtopic usually had the sidebar down in an appropriate pollution section rather than at or near the top of the article. Navigation templates are purposed to appear in the articles that are listed in those templates. Some editors agree and some don't. To my knowledge there is no policy that says either way, so please do whatever you think is right to improve Wikipedia. And thank you very much for coming to my talk page, editor EMsmile! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 09:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your kindness! Should I post about this also on the talk page of the pollution template in order to collect more opinions? Or just wait and see if there are any reactions on the talk pages of those articles where I've removed the pollution side bar? EMsmile (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
To editor EMsmile: well, before any wholesale removal I would ask myself if I really thought I was doing the right thing. Readers come first, and sidebars/navbars are navigation templates used to help readers find other articles that are related to the one they landed on. I can't tell you how much I've learned about pollution just by updating and expanding these templates. Anyway, again you should do what you think is right. If I found a misplaced template I would boldly remove it and watch the talk page (following WP:BRD which allows for the Bold move, then the Revert if it happens, and then the Discussion – BRD), but that's just me. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort of staggering proportion, so I'm sure that whatever you do, it will turn out alright. Best to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 19:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

readded Valereee
removed Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
  • An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

  • The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
  • Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
  • Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
  • Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

New Page Review queue August 2022

Hello Paine Ellsworth,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination
MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
Open letter to the WMF
The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
TIP - Reviewing by subject
Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
New reviewers
The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
Reminders
  • Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
  • If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
  • To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

UN List of NSGT

Hi,

I don't believe your closure and subsequent move of this page represented the consensus on that page. At best as far as I can see it was headed toward no consensus and your closure amounted to a supervote. As such I would request you undo the action you undertook and request an uninvolved admin to close the review. WCMemail 09:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi WCM, and thank you very much for coming to my talk page! You have a valid objection for certain, since I am not an admin. The reason I even attempt such closes is because there are few admins compared to the number of active users, less than 1%, so I help out when I can. Perhaps you are correct in your analysis that the survey was tending toward a local no-consensus outcome; however, you've been here a long time, and you know that while our style manual still needs work, the spirit behind that guideline and its community consensus is pretty clear. Article titles should be in sentence case and not in title case. So while you and others made compelling arguments that show obvious needs for improvement to the MOS, the spirit of the MOS still calls for lowercasing. If I were to do as you request, I'm certain that the outcome would not be significantly different from what it is now. I have no stake whatsoever in these casing discussions; I really don't have an opinion either way. So my closing statement was just a summary of the consensus analysis I made. If I had an opinion, I would have expressed it instead of closing the RM. So there was no !vote from me, super or otherwise. Thanks again for being here! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 18:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry but that is a textbook example of a supervote, you have acted based on your personal interpretation of policy, not based on the arguments presented. MOS is a guideline not a rule to be rigidly obeyed without thinking. In any case, your interpretation that this was a case of Title Case is wrong, it was capitalisation of a phrase used as a proper noun. So I will repeat my request, I would prefer not to have to go toward a move review and waste more of the communities time but if I have to I will. WCMemail 18:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Agree to disagree. The close was based primarily upon the local consensus found in that RM, not on any guideline interpretation. That consensus simply agreed with the style guideline. And that consensus decided to treat the phrase, "non-self-governing territories", as a common noun phrase as part of a sentence-case article title. MRV, while it can take up a lot of time, is rarely a waste of time; however, in this case I would have to agree that it probably would be time wasted. If you disagree with the style guideline, then that is a separate discussion for a different talk page, as I'm sure you well know. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 20:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Move review for United Nations list of non-self-governing territories

An editor has asked for a Move review of United Nations list of non-self-governing territories. 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. WCMemail 19:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics § 2023 Nigerian general election

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics § 2023 Nigerian general election. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Fatima close

You wrote:

The MRV has determined that this closing statement is too brief to be acceptable for this move request. So to be more precise there is consensus seen below even though it is a tough call. The no PTOPIC arguments made by the opposers were compelling; however, the supporters' arguments were strong enough to establish consensus to move these pages. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 11:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

That’s better, but, “the supporters' arguments were strong enough to establish consensus to move these pages” begs why were the supporters’ arguments stronger? — SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I noted how well the supporters rebutted the no-PTOPIC arguments made by the opposers. Those were the strong and compelling args made by the opposers, and I agonized over that and the counter args made by other editors. After due consideration I came to the conclusion that the opposing args had been effectively rebutted, which led to moving the alternative spelling, "Fatimah" to the basename, "Fatima". In short, there was compelling evidence furnished that Fatima is the primary topic. Thank you very much for coming to my talk page, SmokeyJoe! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 17:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Paine. It may look like I am trying to hold you to a higher standard than other closers, but I feel encouraged by your receptiveness to advice. I feel that I am not asking for you to do much different, but that I feel some specific things you could easily do better. I hope it doesn't feel like nitpicking.
Regarding that Fatima close, I feel that your arguments analysis was good, but that you don't communicate back in the closing statement why your analysis fell that side, and not this. The problem is that ordinary editors who come by later can read your close as arbitrary. I don't want to pretend to know how to explain better than you, but what I think would make an much better close would be for your closing explanation to cite <what argument>, or <whose argument> was more strong or compelling, and if you can, using only wording from the discussion, say <why> that argument, cited ideally to >2 people, won the discussion.
I also want to say that it is admirable how you work to clear the backlog of complicated discussions, and I hope you continue. If you were to run for RfA again, I would support citing especially you pleasant demeanour, fair treatment of wide perspectives, and amicable responsiveness to questions and challenges following your closing of difficult discussions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
It's all good my friend. And thank you for your kind words! Don't expect to be running for admin any time soon; I guess I feel too old to put myself through that again. Plus I never really needed the tools having made a ton of edits with the help of admins and fully-protected edit requests. Anthony helped me with a lot of protected page moves and hist merges; gonna miss him. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 02:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
You don’t come across as old. I sense you as young (~25-35) and enthusiastic, although with a patience that’s unusual. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Now you are being generous!>) Guess at 72 I've kept some of my youthful brashness? and gained a little more patience. Hope to never lose my enthusiasm neither for this project nor for any other of my interests. You are a wonderful mentor here, and I hope to continue to learn from you!  Paine  11:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message

Hi Paine Ellsworth,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Editing news 2022 #2

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Graph showing 90-minute response time without the new tool and 39-minute response time with the tool
The [subscribe] button shortens response times.

The new [subscribe] button notifies people when someone replies to their comments. It helps newcomers get answers to their questions. People reply sooner. You can read the report. The Editing team is turning this tool on for everyone. You will be able to turn it off in your preferences.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The Sound of Music(s)

Hello - thanks for the close at Talk:The_Sound_of_Music#Requested_move_24_July_2022, but I was hoping for a little deeper dive into the actual rationales put forward. The !opposers generally did not rely on WP policy/guidelines. "The musical came first" is true, but coming first is not part of WP naming policy. "Maybe the movie will get less popular some day" goes against WP:CRYSTAL. If that were to happen someday, RMs are easy to propose. But in the meantime, we are keeping people away from the actual most-sought topic. The !supporters, on the other hand, put forward much more policy-grounded arguments, tending to show a primarytopic split, leading to the dab page at the basename. I'd appreciate another weighing of arguments if you don't mind. Dohn joe (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

To editor Dohn joe: just to let you know, I'm taking another look at this (workin' on it boss). P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 20:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
To editor Dohn joe: really difficult call to be sure. A tough one that is a month old and has been relisted three times, and since that third relist there were only two more !votes. I don't know, Dohn joe, it still looks to me like PTOPIC against NO-PTOPIC, and within PTOPIC it's play vs. film. Still see no agreement, no consensus for or against the current titles, and for or against the proposed titles; however, I will be glad to reopen the move request to let another closer decide, if that is what you would prefer. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 21:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for my delay in getting back here. I really appreciate the second look. We can probably let sleeping dogs lie here for awhile. If it's enough of an issue, someone will raise it again down the road. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. Thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 05:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Guideline and policy news

  • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
  • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
  • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:To2

Template:To2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
  • On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive.
  • Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Closure of Talk:Russian separatist forces in Donbas#Requested move 13 August 2022

Hello, I'm not fully convinced by the way you closed with "no consensus" the RM at Russian separatist forces in Donbas. In terms of !votes, I see 7 editors opposing the RM and 13 or 14 supporting it. I agree with you that 7 against 14 is a strong opposition, but is it strong enough to deny the request? But the main point is about sources and arguments. There are basically no sources using "Russian separatists" for referring to the subject of the article, while there are dozens, actually hundreds of sources calling them "pro-Russian". If you read the discussion, you'll see that no editor opposing the RM was able to point to sources using "Russian separatists" - they are almost non-existent, and Wikipedia and quota.com are the main "sources" using that expression. Besides "Russian separatists" is imprecise: many separatists are Ukrainian. If you read the arguments shared in the discussion, you'll see that some editors opposed the RM on political grounds without providing sources: they are politically ultra-Russian. They are Russian citizens. They identify with Russian nationality, culture, and probably ethnicity. Their allegiance is not just to Russian government, but to extremist Russian ultranationalism, imperialism, and Orthodoxy; the separatist units ... are acting under direct command of Russian Army officers ... These forces, just as the entire administration of these "republics" are directly controlled by Kremlin). NPOV implies that we reject this line of reasoning whose end result is that they're just foreign enemies and invaders. So you see, it's not just 14 against 7, all policy-based arguments (WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISE and WP:NPOVTITLE are on one side, and on the other side there's no WP:CRITERIA at all. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, editor Gitz, and thank you very much for coming to my talk page! Yes, that was a close call. That request was open for well over a month with two relists. As I read through the survey and discussion, I could not quite sense that editors had built a consensus to rename. I really don't see how reopening the request would result in a different outcome, and would suggest you concentrate on making the existing arguments even stronger, and perhaps uncovering new arguments for next time. Having said that, I'm usually pretty open and suggestible about no-consensus outcomes, so how would you like me to proceed? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 22:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. On how to proceed I'd rely on your judgment and experience. If you think there's a point in doing that, I could easily publish a survey of sources showing that "pro-Russian" is the current denomination in all reliable sources from all countries - even the English-speaking Ukrainian press commonly calls them "pro-Russian", e.g. [32], [33] [34]. The bottom line is that everybody calls them "pro-Russian" (occasionally "Russian-backed", "Russian-supported" and "Russian affiliated") and none calls them "Russian" - as they are not Russian - so this is a blatant mistake on our part that we need to address somehow. How can we do this? Perhaps re-opening the RM and notifying it at NPOV/N might be an idea? Note that the last comment is quite recent, on 21 September, so maybe there are some more editors around willing to contribute to the discussion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
The editors who are opposed to "pro-Russian" strongly disagree with your stance in regard to whether or not they are Russian and consider the sources questionable at best. In a future RM you would be expected to show beyond reasonable doubt that they are not Russian, and that sources unquestionably support the "pro-Russian" change. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 23:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, I cannot show that they are not Russian because sources rarely address their nationality. They report that there are Russian citizens among them, but it's also well known that many of them are Ukrainian citizens, born in those regions, who have been forced to enlist (military service is compulsory). However, it's very easy to prove that sources unquestionably support the "pro-Russian" change. I had already done so before starting the RM, here: [35]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I think this is where more strength of argument is needed. You stipulate, ...none calls them "Russian" - as they are not Russian - so this is a blatant mistake on our part that we need to address somehow. Then you say, I cannot show that they are not Russian because sources rarely address their nationality. They report that there are Russian citizens among them, which conflicts and clouds the issue for some involved editors. Well, I have to get some rest; would be glad to discuss more with you when I awaken later. G'night Gitz. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 04:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your willingness to discuss this further. Re their nationality, we have Al Jazeera writing in February 2022, Even so, it is understood that the while majority of separatist fighters were born in Ukraine, there are significant numbers of Russians among them. In July 2022 The Guardian published that Pro-Russia separatist forces have stepped up the forced conscription of men – including Ukrainian passport holders – in occupied areas of the Donbas region.
So the majority of them are not Russian; the overwhelming majority of sources calls them "pro-Russian".
There's another important argument in favour of "pro-Russian". At least until the Russian aggression in February 2022, the war in Donbas was generally qualified both as an international armed conflict (between Russia and Ukraine) and as a non-international armed conflict (that is, as an internal conflict - a "civil war") in Ukraine: it was said to be an "hybrid" conflict. See sources:
  • Human Rights Watch, 11 September 2014. Human Rights Watch is of the view that the hostilities between Ukrainian government forces and armed insurgent forces identifying themselves as the South-East Army and the Donetsk People’s Army constitutes an internal, or non-international, armed conflict under international humanitarian law.
  • Kahn, Jeffrey (2018-12-20). "Hybrid Conflict and Prisoners of War". Complex Battlespaces. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190915360.003.0007. there is also fighting sufficiently intense and involving sufficiently organized non-State actors to be considered a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) between the Ukrainian State and rebel forces in Donetsk and Luhansk.
  • Geneva Academy. Ukrainian armed forces have been involved in non-international armed conflicts with the self-proclaimed ‘People’s Republics’ of Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine.
Admittedly things have changed following the invasion in 2022 and will further change with the annexation of Donetsk and Luhansk's people's republics to the Russian Federation. But the article deals with the separatist forces from 2014 onwards, and the separatists should not be retrospectively turned into "Russian" because of later events. If we call them "Russian" we are implying (contrary to the sources) that the war in Donbas has always and exclusively been an international armed conflict. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Very interesting points, Gitz. When you make the next request to rename, I think it is important to remember that we can say only so much in an article title. The bulk of the information for readers is found in the article's content, and the title is hopefully the highest and best pointer toward that content's information. That's not always an easy task, yet it is that to which we should aspire. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 02:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
thanks for the patience you showed in replying to my remarks. I'll follow your and Dennis Brown's advice and will wait 3 months before re-opening another RM. In three months time, the pro-Russian separatists will have become true "Russian separatists" because of the annexation referenda, and the issue of their name will have a purely historic interest, so to say - perhaps it'll be less politically overloaded and more manageable through discussion. In the worst scenario, we will have preceded Putin in turning the pro-Russia Ukrainian separatists into proper Russian separatists, and our recently closed RM will appear as a bitter sign of destiny: Wikipedia anticipating the sham referenda! Best wishes, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
my pleasure Gitz! Sounds like a good plan. Best of everything to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 09:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors' October 2022 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors October 2022 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to our latest newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

Drive: Of the 22 editors who signed up for our July Backlog Elimination Drive, 18 copy-edited, between them, 116 articles. Barnstars awarded are noted here.

Blitz: Participants in our August Copy Editing Blitz copy-edited 51,074 words in 17 articles. Of the 15 editors who signed up, 11 claimed at least one copy-edit. Barnstars awarded are noted here.

Drive: Forty-one editors took part in our September Backlog Elimination Drive; between them they copy-edited 199 articles. Barnstars awards are noted here.

Blitz: Our October Copy Editing Blitz begins on 16 October at 00:01 (UTC) and will end on 22 October at 23:59 (UTC). Barnstars awarded will be posted here.

Progress report: As of 19:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 303 requests for copy edit – including withdrawn and declined ones – since 1 January. At the time of writing, there are 77 requests awaiting attention and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 1,759. We always need more active, skilled copyeditors – particularly for requests – so please get involved if you can.

Election news: In our mid-year election, serving coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Reidgreg and Tenryuu were returned for another term, and were joined by new coordinator Zippybonzo. No lead coordinator was elected for this half-year. Jonesey95, a long-serving coordinator and lead, was elected as coordinator emeritus; we thank them for their service. Thank you to everyone who took part. Our next election of coordinators takes place throughout December. If you'd like to help out at the GOCE, please consider nominating yourself or other suitable editors (with their permission, of course!). It's your Guild, after all!

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Reidgreg, Tenryuu and Zippybonzo.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Baffle☿gab 03:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello Paine Ellsworth,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022

Suggestions:

  • There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
  • Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
  • Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
  • This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders
  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

"Southern Cross Nine" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Southern Cross Nine and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 28#Southern Cross Nine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Bassie f (talk) 06:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Saturn Award for Best Actress/doc

Template:Saturn Award for Best Actress/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Chris Chandler

Hi. I don't agree that there was a consensus to move Chris Chandler to Chris Chandler (American football). I showed that the football player is clearly the best-known topic for that name (with all but one of the results on the first five pages of Newspapers.com results being about him), and the only other notable "Chris Chandler" (the person who served a few years in a California court) doesn't seem to have received nearly as much coverage as the football player. There was three in support of moving it to the (American football) title (and one of them was just "I support") and two in opposition. Can move discussions be relisted? That's what would have made sense to do in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi BeanieFan11, welcome to my talk page and thank you for coming! It is the option of every editor to agree or disagree with a closing decision on Wikipedia. Your rationale was compelling in that move request; however, other editors appeared to think that the Chris Chandler article about the football QB should be qualified with "(American football)". That page move was a lot more work than I had expected! I spent hours disambiguating the links to the "Chris Chandler" title. Tried to use AWB, but it kept hanging because there were some links that could be easily dabbed, while others were within templates and needed an extra parameter, such as |d=American football or |dab=(American football) or even |3=Chris Chandler (American football), dependent on the sorting template. So a lot of time spent manually dabbing around 200 articles, some with upwards from seven or eight links! Anyway, to answer your question, move requests can be relisted when there is no consensus and minimal participation, not usually when a consensus is achieved, though. Perhaps if we wait awhile another move request can reverse it, and the longer we wait the more likely it will succeed. Thanks again for discussing it with me, and stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 07:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Moving a page

Thanks for notifying me about the issue with moving ACPI. I'll do it correctly next time. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

To editor PhotographyEdits: my pleasure! It's all good. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 17:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

High-use template display on sandboxes

It looks like you are trying to get Template:High-use to stop displaying on the /sandbox page, or to display differently, but it does not appear to have worked (although I don't know what it looked like before). That doesn't seem like a bad idea, but it would probably be better to do it from within the template itself. Let me know if you would like some help. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jonesey95, and thanks for offering! Always been a little disappointed to use {{#ifeq:{{SUBPAGENAME}}|sandbox||{{High-use}}}}, because it removes HU from the sandbox display entirely. Problem was, HU would always just say "many pages" on the sandbox doc, and I thought it was inappropriate. So I finally dug a little deeper and found the |demo= parameter in the HU template. Use of {{High-use|demo={{ROOTPAGENAME}}}}, as in the example you gave above, returns the HU to the sandbox display with the number of transclusions of the root page instead of the sandbox page. Do me a favor and let me know if you see any problem with using |demo={{ROOTPAGENAME}} that way.
I should tell you that it got a little tricky with the Country data templates. As you know, we started using {{#ifeq:{{#invoke:High-use|num|x}}|many||{{High-use}}}} at {{Country showdata}}, thanks in no small part to you and Johnuniq's input, to install HU on all Country data templates that needed it without placing it on their existing sandbox pages. I was able to return HU to their sandbox pages using the number of transclusions of their root pages with {{#ifeq:{{#invoke:High-use|num|x|demo={{ROOTPAGENAME}}}}|many||{{High-use|demo={{ROOTPAGENAME}}}}}}. An example would be {{Country data Canada}} and its sandbox. And as can be seen at {{Country data Utah}} and its sandbox, HU still does not appear on Country data pages that have not reached 2,000 transclusions. Another favor... let me know if you sense any challenges there, also. Thank you so much! because I've learned so much just watching your and Johnuniq's work over the years! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 22:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Just learned that care must be taken with modules. Use of {{High-use|demo={{ROOTPAGENAME}}}} roots back to the number of template transclusions instead of module transclusions, so {{High-use|demo=Module:{{ROOTPAGENAME}}}} must be used to get the correct figure. Minor glitch. See Module:Age. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 23:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
What I was thinking is that rather than make thousands of edits like this, we may be able to tell the {{High-use}} template itself to behave properly if it finds itself on a /sandbox page. I don't know what is possible, but making one edit is usually better than making a few thousand. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't know what is possible either, and I'm not particularly Lua savvy enough to alter the invoked Module:High-use to achieve the outcome. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 00:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I decided to have a look into Module:High-use to see why the count was being changed to "many". Turns out the issue actually lies in a sub-module, Module:Transclusion count. While the module would remove any ending /doc from the page before checking for its use count, it never considered /sandbox, and so it would look in its data for the /sandbox version (which is never the case), so it gets no count, and therefore Module:High-use defaults to "many". I've gone ahead and made the module remove /sandbox ending in the sandbox version, which should fix the issue, and you can see the difference here. Hope this helps. Aidan9382 (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the work. I had an edit conflict with your comment. I was about to say that I'm pretty useless at the moment due to off-wiki turmoil, but I'm also wondering about the big-picture objective. Why should Module:Convert and Module:Convert/sandbox show the same transclusion count? Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Not exactly a template I've worked with much before so I can't provide the best view, but I normally find it as a useful idea of how used a template/module is, which can give me a good idea on things like how much testing content I might have available or how many edge cases I should consider within reason. Having this simply just become "many pages" when viewing the /sandbox page makes this inconvenient, since I then have to go back to the main or doc page just to get the count. No sandboxes have enough uses to be considered high use, meaning they always show "many pages", so I'd say either making the count show the main page's count or removing it entirely would be an idea worth doing, and I think the former would be more useful. Aidan9382 (talk) 07:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your work and for another reason to show the count on the sandbox pages! I spent a lot of time removing the HU template from sandboxes because I thought the "many" message could be very confusing to editors. As I said above, I recently found that when the HU's |demo= parameter is used, then the HU can be reapplied to the sandbox with the correct count info. Aidan9382, I don't think your fix has worked yet – see Template:AfC submission/comments and its sandbox. That one still reads "many" instead of its root page count. Another issue I've found left over from before all the major upgrades to the HU template and module is that editors have placed an actual count in the first parameter. That's ignored on the main template page; however, when that manual count is there in the first parameter, the sandbox page shows that false count instead of the actual count shown on the root page /doc. Just another little glitch I guess. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 07:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I'd only pushed it to the sandbox version yet. I've pushed it to the main version of the module, give it another look. And about the fake count - the reason its only displaying on /sandbox pages is because the real count takes priority over the fake one, so when the /sandbox version returned no count, it used the fake count. Aidan9382 (talk) 07:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Awesome! Now another little gentle reminder (mentioned it earlier), I found that when I used the demo parameter with ROOTPAGENAME on a module, the module would draw its count from its same-named template. So if the template's count was 30,000 and the module's count was over a million, the HU in the module's documentation would show the incorrect 30,000 count. It appears the same-named modules consider their source templates to be their ROOT PAGES. My bandaid was to add the "Module:" namespace name to the demo parameter, as in {{High-use|demo=Module:{{ROOTPAGENAME}}}}. Just another li'l thing to watch out for. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 07:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
That's another issue that can be solved. Instead of using |demo={{ROOTPAGENAME}} (Produces Paine Ellsworth), use |demo={{NAMESPACE}}:{{ROOTPAGENAME}} (Produces User talk:Paine Ellsworth). If it doesn't recieve a namespace in the demo, it assumes it's a Template. This wouldn't have worked originally since Module:Transclusion count would throw a fit if the demo started with Template:, but I've gone ahead and fixed that, so this solution should now work fine. Hope this helps. Aidan9382 (talk) 07:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
To editor Aidan9382: yes, NAMESPACE:ROOTPAGENAME is better than Module:ROOTPAGENAME. I think the idea is to be able to use {{High-use}} all by itself without any parameters and get the correct counts on all the subsequent /doc appearances. Is that what you've done? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 08:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Basically, yes. That hack is only needed in the more complex cases, like making it reference something that isnt the immediate parent page (E.g. Module:ABC/XYZ/sandbox would successfully show the transclusion count for Module:ABC/XYZ, which I assume is what you are asking, but you would need to use |demo={{NAMESPACE}}:{{ROOTPAGENAME}} for it to show the transclusion count for Module:ABC from Module:ABC/XYZ(/sandbox)). Aidan9382 (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
That's really terrific! I've placed code on a lot of /doc pages that removes the HU template from sandbox pages, so I can stop doing that now, and every time I come across that code I'll replace it with the bare template. Thank you so much for these fixes! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 08:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
To editor Johnuniq: sorry to hear of your offline situation and hope it calms down soon for you! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 07:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Please consider: make the count for {{ROOTPAGENAME}}. There are subpages that conveniently use the parent's /doc page: (like, reuse /doc in both in {{Example}} and {{Example/format}}). Note that this would cover the ../sandbox page too. Could be by parameter-&-default. -DePiep (talk) 07:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned about making the module use {{ROOTPAGENAME}} by default. There are quite a few pages in which a sub-version of the module or template is used, and sometimes with different counts (sometimes more than the parent page has). Having it as an option could be worth it, but |demo= already exists for practically that purpose, and having it by default feels like it could cause more problems than fix. I can look into writing something that does this in the /sandbox version for testing, but I think that might need a bit more thought on how to properly work that. Aidan9382 (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Sure, better not change the default in existing case. Would it help if the new parameter is doing away-from-default? Like, |apply_to_rootpage=yes in the /doc page? DePiep (talk) 08:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I recently reverted an edit by Editor Paine Ellsworth at Template:Cite wikisource/doc because Template:Cite wikisource/sandbox is not a high use template; if it ever becomes a high use template then something is wrong and needs fixing. Despite all of the words spent above, I'm not convinced of the utility of showing the rendered {{high use}} template using numbers for the live template on the sandbox template's doc page. I do think that there is utility in showing the actual number of sandbox transclusions (above some nominal default number) and showing that in a way that makes it obvious to a reader that we are using the sandbox template as if it were live (a bad thing).
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
To editor Trappist the monk: as I mentioned earlier, it's always been disappointing for me when I had to remove the HU template from a sandbox because its rendering just said it's used on "many pages". It's disappointing because I thought there should be a way to show the actual transclusions of the live template so that editors would keep the high use in mind while adjusting the sandbox and provide the best rendering of their suggested edit before going live. Now the HU template actually provides that info, and I think that's a good reason to return the HU template to the sandbox doc pages. If the wording clarifies that the transclusion count is for the live template, and the sandbox should be "just right" before the edit goes live, I think that's an improvement, isn't it? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 02:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
We are talking about sandboxen. Sandboxen are not high-use unless something is very wrong. Anyone editing a sandbox and then wanting to update the live template from that sandbox must confront the rendering of the {{high-use}} template at the live template. For me, that is sufficient. To state, as the current {{high-use}} template does, that the sandbox version of the template has <number> of transclusions (same as the live template) is misleading. Changing the wording (discussed below) is one option, but misleading the reader is just wrong, so no, that is not an improvement.
If the wording is changed, there should be no need to edit any template calls with |demo={{NAMESPACE}}:{{ROOTPAGENAME}} or the like; Module:High-use should be made smart enough to do the correct rendering. And, for the purposes to which you are using |demo= is also a bit misleading because you are not using it for demonstration purposes. If it is necessary for Module:High-use to occasionally get the count for another (parent?) page, a more appropriately named parameter should be used for the avoidance of confusion.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Different wording?

 – To a better venue. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 23:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda Arendt, you are the most precious one here! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 13:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

sidetalk

re your [36]: .. for the most part says exactly my point: you are evading the question, dodging consideration, also when it has been put to you by someone else. There is a diff between "I don't understand" and "I don't hear". I dare using "dodge", since you do not engage in a research to find out what that issue would be; instead you ignore it, at best. DePiep (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, DePiep, just an excuse but I haven't been feeling well lately, so please forgive any perceived ignorance on my part, and I'll try to do better in the future. Think I'll do a few more things and then go to bed for a time. Best to you, sincerely! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 08:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

CheckUser changes

removed TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

removed TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to our latest newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since October. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

Blitz: Our October Copy Editing Blitz focused on July and August 2022 request months; and articles tagged for c/e in December 2021 and January 2022. Seventeen of those who signed up claimed at least one copy-edit, and between them copy-edited forty-six articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

Drive: In the November Backlog Elimination Drive, thirty editors signed up, twenty-two of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Both target months—December 2021 and January 2022—were cleared, and February was added to the target months. Sixteen requests were copy-edited and 239 articles were removed from the backlog. Barnstars awarded are here.

Blitz: Our seven-day-long December 2022 Copy Editing Blitz begins on 17 December at 00:01 (UTC)*. It will focus on articles tagged for copy-edit in February 2022, and pending requests from September and October. Barnstars awarded will be available here.

Progress report: As of 22:40, 8 December 2022, GOCE copyeditors have processed 357 requests since 1 January, there were seventy-four requests outstanding and the backlog stands at 1,791 articles. We always need skilled copy-editors; please help out if you can.

Election news: Nomination of candidates for the GOCE's Election of Coordinators for the first half of 2023 is open and continues until 23:59 on 15 December. Voting begins at 00:01 on 16 December and closes at 23:59 on 31 December. All editors in good standing (not under ArbCom or community sanctions) are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed. Coordinators serve a six-month term that ends at 23:59 on June 30. If you've thought about helping out at the Guild, please nominate yourself or any editor you consider suitable—with their permission, of course!. It's your Guild and it doesn't coordinate itself.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers and best seasonal wishes from your GOCE coordinators, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Tenryuu, and Zippybonzo.

*All times and dates on this newsletter are UTC.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error

The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Ethiopian Distrust

When you were a suspected CIA agent did you ever get a reasonable explanation for their distrust? On a related note, we discovered that we can implement much of our CIA activities in NGOs, hence the inflation of our democracy promotion and human rights budgets. If a paycheck was from USAID, or any State Department foreign policy mission, one should expect to be viewed that way. I think all of us as Americans grow up and probably would be dispatched into the world assuming good intentions, which I think is a great way for children to be raised but am not sure if it does good for the world given its often a fallacy. Around this time was the Global South meeting to discuss an alternative to the Western, Soviet and Communist blocs dominating the world? Brown people were invited to creat this, "Third Way," later known as the Third World, disparagingly. The wildly sadistic CIA operation in Indonesia to replace the democracy that platformed this Third Way conference with the murderous dictatorship preceding and leading to the current government happened around the time of Haile Selassie, whose words at the UN tragically became a hit song in the West, later reiterated by an Irish singer in the '90s, leading to her cancellation.

That until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned; That until there are no longer first-class and second-class citizens of any nation; That until the color of a man's skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes; That until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all without regard to race; That until that day, the dream of lasting peace and world citizenship and the rule of international morality will remain but a fleeting illusion, to be pursued but never attained; And until the ignoble and unhappy regimes that hold our brothers in Angola, in Mozambique and in South Africa in subhuman bondage have been toppled and destroyed; Until bigotry and prejudice and malicious and inhuman self-interest have been replaced by understanding and tolerance and good-will; Until all Africans stand and speak as free beings, equal in the eyes of all men, as they are in the eyes of Heaven; Until that day, the African continent will not know peace. We Africans will fight, if necessary, and we know that we shall win, as we are confident in the victory of good over evil. – Haile Selassie I

And of course, being the only African country never colonized, is your remark on their view of an American from a Peace Corps in their country, America being genocidal, African enslavers, one of amusement or respect? Talk⁄Louis Waweru 14:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

A bit of both, I'd say. And thank you for reading my philosophy subpage! Those were truly interesting times. I suppose the way the people thought we were spies had a little to do with the political turmoil in Ethiopia. While I was there, Haile Selassie was ousted by a military coup, jailed and eventually died in prison, college students were rioting in the streets, Eritreans continued to fight for independence, Muslims and Christians were always at each other's throats, but usually saved their heated battles for nighttime and away from populated areas, and border crises were continuous, for example air wars with the Somalians. And yet somehow we managed to help people. PCVs played a huge role in fighting and getting rid of smallpox, and being available to teach when the students came to school. The food was excellent and, for the most part, the people were civil to us regardless of what they may have thought of us as CIA agents. All in all it was a great experience for me and for most other idealistic young people who went there to help. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 15:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Apologies for being so aggressive there. Not sure how I keep going from genuine interest to anger, but I'm sure it's not to do with you. You're an interesting Wikipedian, thanks for sharing these things. I think your experience is special and would be appreciated however incomplete as words as opposed to your memories. Thank you for the counter in kind. Talk⁄Louis Waweru 15:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
No need to apologize, editor Louis Waweru, nothing to forgive. When I look back I remember that I was sometimes angered by some of the things I saw, such as the photos being distributed of Selassie feeding his huge dogs a good deal of meat while so many people starved on the streets of Addis Ababa. And every time the OAU came to town Selassie would have all the beggars herded into a compound so they couldn't be seen by the visiting dignitaries. Many of the beggars died while in custody. When I visited Addis, my best friend Neal described how he practiced running to the embassy to get there as fast as possible if necessary. And where I lived in Harar, I and fellow PCVs would sometimes huddle together in the same building when the violence got loud and sounded close, fully expecting helicopters to fly in and take us out. As I said, interesting times, but none of us were ever seriously hurt by any of it. It's such a beautiful country! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 15:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paine_Ellsworth/Archive_23&oldid=1131133395"