head of giraffe
'Wikipedia is a community effort of staggering proportions!'
Mop with crown.svg

I am not an administrator. Wouldn't mind being one, although don't really want to be. Wouldn't mind being an admin because I deeply respect many admins and have been helped by them many, many times over the years. I also respect (tho' do not always agree with) the community vettings at RfA that often show the ultimate trust of an editor. Don't really want to be an admin because I guess I'm just too old to go through that sometimes grueling community scrutiny.

So I shall remain a non-admin caught between two worlds... the world of the admins, which means I'm expected not to close controversial discussions (which I sometimes do, sometimes don't), and the world of less experienced editors who don't want me to close the "easy" discussions (which I also sometimes do, sometimes don't), and save those for them. If it's in the backlog, then it's fair game!

Anyway, if you have come to ask about one of my RfC, RM, MRV or other discussion closures, you are very welcome here! I am usually inclined to reopen a discussion if the outcome was "no consensus" and when I am asked to do so (not so much if I found a consensus – doesn't mean I cannot be persuaded with a good, sound argument)! Please be very clear about your intentions and do not beat around the bush. Thank you for your deeply respected concerns!

'they help us keep our minds sharp!'

Recently registered?Edit

    Learn quickly how to journey into and through this awe-inspiring reference work!

Older collapsed discussions
Discussions and notifications... → click the section title in the Table of Contents (ToC) above, or click [show] to see all the discussions
The following are closed discussions. Please do not modify them. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:R to project namespaceEdit

Re these edits, surely just an <includeonly>...</includeonly> is needed? — Qwerfjkltalk 05:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't think so, editor Qwerfjkl... as tested in the [sandbox] and also seen on the [testcases] page, the text of the rcat template was removed by the previous two edits, and <includeonly>...</includeonly>tags remove the text from the template page without making a difference. I've tried some different ideas in the sandbox in preview, but nothing works so far except to leave the rcat template as it is now. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 13:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On further inspection, I believe this is because {{This is a redirect/rcat}} transcludes the page. The fix is probably to check if the page title is Template:R to project namespace. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool! Feel free to test that idea. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 21:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Done; works. I don't think this can be tested in preview, precisely because it transcludes itself, so the preview will use the actual text rather than what you want to preview. — Qwerfjkltalk 09:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It strikes me that this should probably be done in {{Redirect template}}, as it applies to all rcat templates. — Qwerfjkltalk 09:55, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{Redirect template}} has been luafied. Not adept at Lua, I cannot be of much help there. How's your Lua? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 21:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas!Edit

MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:53, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To editor MBlaze Lightning: wishing you and yours the Best New Year ever! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 21:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 1 January 2023Edit

Happy New Year, Paine Ellsworth!Edit

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Moops T 20:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much, Moops, and Happy New Year to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 21:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect-related template added to infobox of Lux Aeterna (Mansell)Edit

Hi Paine Ellsworth,

Thanks for the clean-up related to the Requiem for a Tower/Lux Aeterna (Mansell) page merge. I have a question about the addition of the {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} template to the infobox on Lux Aeterna (Mansell). I must admit that I don't quite understand what this template is meant to do, but I suspect that it's not supposed to display as it is in that infobox. If it's functioning as intended, so be it, but I thought you might like to review it. Cheers. Marchijespeak/peek 16:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To editor Marchije: that was a mis-click on my part and has been corrected. I use TemplateScript, which places links in my left margin to templates I use often. My mouse has a very sensitive click button that sometimes installs a template in a place where it shouldn't be. Thank you for coming to my talk page to let me know! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 18:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I figured that it might be a "slip of the finger" type of situation. Thanks again. Marchijespeak/peek 19:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
my pleasure! Paine  19:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023Edit

Hello Paine Ellsworth,

New Page Review queue December 2022
The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.


  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If 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.


User talk:MB#New pages patrol newsletter

Request to explain reasons for closing the requested move "Altaic languages" to "Transeurasian languages."Edit

Also very curious why you believe "also called Transeurasian" is an untrue claim.

Thank you. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for coming to my talk page, Ignis Cheldon! To your inquiry:
...explain reasons for closing the requested move "Altaic languages" to "Transeurasian languages."
As I mentioned in my closing statement, there was a strong consensus against the page move. Seen in the survey discussion were opposing rationales that outweighed the supporting argument.
very curious why you believe "also called Transeurasian" is an untrue claim.
Brought out in the discussion was that the two terms are not synonymous and cover different subjects, so it is wrong to confuse readers by equating the terms. You might try writing a new section in the article content that explains the similarities and differences. Suggest you run that by other involved editors on the talk page first. Thanks again for coming here! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 02:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Just to clarify, your decision to edit "Altaic also called Transeurasian" to "Altaic" was based exclusively on TaivoLinguist's claim:
"Since "Transeurasian" includes all the things that are irrelevant to historical linguistics and even allows room in the theory for those who don't find evidence for a genetic linguistic relationship (unlike "Altaic"), then "Transeurasian" and "Altaic" are different enough to not be synonyms."
Please confirm whether that is correct. Or perhaps you have made your own conclusion that since Transeurasian and Altaic are not synonyms, therefore "Altaic also called Transeurasian" is an "untrue claim." Please note that the statement "Altaic also called Transeurasian" does not presuppose their being synonymous and the very move request you have canceled was undertaken with the sole purpose to clarify that nuance.
This is important because I am going to proceed with the move review process, and will have to mention your reasoning. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see that another editor has restored the verbage in the lead with an edit summary, "Restored. Not an 'untrue claim'." Don't know enough to contest that any longer; however, the decision to not move must stand. Do what you think is right. I understand how it is when I think I'm right even though several other editors think I'm wrong. Been there, done that, got the tee shirt and the baseball cap. Best to you! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 03:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Don't know enough to contest that any longer"
Please do not remove these comments until the review is complete. Thank you. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 03:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why on Earth would I do that? Do you think that because I'm not an expert linguist who knows all about the Altaic language family that I also don't know how to read consensus? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 03:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was no consensus. Austronesier (who reversed your "Altaic also called Transeurasian is an untrue claim" edit) believes "Transeurasian" is the correct term but it is too new and requires more time.
"It's too soon. "Transeurasian" is a relatively new terminological concept."
"Nor do I criticize the term Transeurasian"
On December 23 Taivolinguist wrote the following:
"However, for the purposes of this article and the question at hand, "Should a Transeurasian discussion be separate or part of this article", it seems that the conclusion for me is that "Transeurasian" is either an attempt to fold non-linguistic arguments into a linguistic discussion ("Altaic") or simply punting on the linguistic issue by discussing the Sprachbund of northeast Asia from linguistic, archeological, and DNA perspectives without making a definitive linguistic determination as to genetic or diffusional relationships (using "genetic" in the strictly linguistic sense of languages that can be definitively proven by linguistic methodology alone to be related by descent from a common ancestor). If the former than it should be discussed here, but if the latter then it deserves its own article. Perhaps we need a poll to determine a clear consensus position one way or the other."
With this text he was the first person to suggest the move is a viable option. Which prompted me to initiate the move. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Why on Earth would I do that?"
I am just trying to follow the regulations. Your reasoning is important and must be available to the reviewers. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your concern. I see you haven't been registered on Wikipedia long, so be advised that even if I were to remove any comments and either delete them or archive them, all WP pages have page histories that record every edit we make. For example, here's your talk page history. Even removed edits are available by going into a page's edit history. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 08:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To editor Ignis Cheldon: just to toss it in, you might want to read WP:Consensus, where you will find an explanation about how consensus on Wikipedia is a bit different than the usual definition of the word. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 09:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023Edit

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

  Administrator changes


  Interface administrator changes


  Guideline and policy news



  • Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
  • Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:US state navigation boxEdit

Hello. The backstory is the discussion here at Template talk:US state navigation box#Remove flags... again, your edit removing the code[1], my mistaken revert of an IP here[2], their undo pointing out my mistake[3]; yet, I can still add an image to the navbox as evidenced at my sandbox. I'm I missing something? --DB1729talk 23:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, DB1729, and thank you for coming to my talk page! The edits that were made by the IP have been reverted, because the image removed was NOT the main image parameter that can, if |image= is used, place an image to the right of the links in the navbar. The image that was removed was just the flag image in the title bar. So there is still an image parameter in the template. That's why your sandbox template still shows an image. Hope this helps, and thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 00:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, makes sense. Thank you for the explanation. --DB1729talk 00:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
my pleasure! Paine  00:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Independent school RMEdit

Hi Paine, thanks for closing the RM discussion at Talk:Independent school. However, it seems to me that there was enough consensus to support the move. There were 9 participants, of which 5 supported the move to "private school", which is the undisputable common name. There was also one comment by Necrothesp. They didn't give explicit support for the move, but they did agree "private schools" and "independent schools" are the same thing, at least in the UK. There was some opposition around WP:RETAIN, but it was shown that both terms are used in the UK and Australia. Also, per MOS:COMMONALITY we should use the name used in all countries, rather than the one used in only some of them. To sum up: most editors supported the move per WP:COMMONNAME. The issues raised by the minority of opposers were rebutted. Would you mind reconsidering your close? Thanks. Vpab15 (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Vpab15, and thank you for coming to my talk page! I thought that was one of the best debates I've seen. Both sides were rooted in policy, the arguments were strong on both sides, and of course the numbers were close, but not close enough to make it crystal clear that there was either "consensus" or "no consensus". So I did pretty much agonize over it for a good while. In the end, I did not quite see a consensus to move as Wikipedia defines the term. My suggestion would be for you to find ways to strengthen the pro-move argument, and try again in a few months with a fresh request. I would think it wrong to reclose it with consensus that I just do not quite see. The best I can do is to reopen and relist the request a second time, and let another editor close it. If that's what you really want, let me know. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 14:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Paine, thanks for your quick reply. I guess we disagree about the strength of the consensus. I would really appreciate it if you relist a second time. Thanks. Vpab15 (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And done. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 14:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not a case where "both sides are rooted in policy". The principle argument against was that there is a WP:RETAIN angle, but that was clearly rebutted for both the UK and Australia, where it was demonstrated that Private School is in wide use. This wasn't a close debate, it was a very clear consensus to move, when viewed through the evidence. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Amakuru! Happy New Year and thank you for being here! Rather than seeing successful rebuttals, I see strong, global args for RETAIN and such, with rebuttals of rebuttals uncontested, so we can hopefully agree to disagree. Do see a growing consensus to move since I relisted, though. I shall be happy to let someone else decide. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 17:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, and a happy new year to you too. Apologies, I should have said that up front 😊 - hope it's a good one for you and yours, and productive editing for all of us here. Anyway, as you say I don't see the above the way you're suggesting. RETAIN doesn't apply if alternative terms are freely used in the country in question, which has been demonstrated; so the COMMONNAME is the policy that matters. Anyway, let's wait and see what happens. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really don't see the value in reopening this as it stands. I'd suggest that a better way to resolve this would be to instigate a move review, especially as this would almost certainly increase the viewings on the topic. Also worth pointing out that one of the supports was a sock. Thanks. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi YorkshireExpat, and welcome to my talk page! You may have noticed at the top of this page that I am usually pretty amenable when it comes to my no-consensus decisions. On a few occasions I've even reopened and relisted such RMs a third time. In this case it was just a second relisting. Frankly I agree with you, mainly because the request has been well-visited by several editors at this point, so this relisting probably won't change anything (although I have seen such reopenings where consensus did indeed emerge). In the end, we're not really in any hurry here on Wikipedia, so if even one editor thinks a consensus might be achieved and such would improve this reference work, then I say let's be patient and see what happens. Thanks again for coming! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 12:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2023 invasion of the Brazilian CongressEdit

You've messed up the links on other articles while moving and deleting redirects. Please fix it. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To editor Roman Reigns Fanboy: editors are jumping the gun by renaming the page before the open move request is closed. I've had to move it back twice now, and will get the page move-protected if necessary. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 15:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay but please do not delete the redirects. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician)Edit

Hi. Thanks for taking the time, but I have concerns about the closing at Talk:14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician)#Requested move 26 December 2022.

  • The result was presented as not moved, and not no consensus, implying a consensus that the current title is best (see WP:THREEOUTCOMES). I don’t see that in the opposition comments: some mention other versions or simply oppose the move. Deciding not moved has repercussions as a precedent for further move requests.
  • The only guideline cited in the decision is WP:COMMONNAME, but the decision is in favour of a title for which Google Books returns 56 results (only eight of them showing the actual title in the snippet),[4], rejecting one showing 428 results.[5] None of the opposition votes asserted the current title as most commonly used, much less demonstrated that it is.
  • As an RM is not a WP:VOTE, shouldn’t the decision say something about the rationale to move, how it was supposedly countered as invalid, and the rationales given by opposing editors?

So I am requesting that you to clarify at the top of the RM how the decision was made, or at least change the result to no consensus. Thanks.  —Michael Z. 20:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Michael Z., and thank you very much for coming to my talk page! The points you make above are all valid in the general handling of move requests; however, in this specific request the opposing arguments were strong enough to overcome the supporting args, which presented as a clear consensus to keep the current article title. I've been closing for awhile now, and I always disregard the number of !votes, taking into account the arguments/rationales only. Can't help if that sometimes coincides with the !vote count as it seems to in this case. I did agonize a little between "not moved" and "no consensus", but in the end I thought that the objective tilt was toward the former. I have expanded my closing statement a bit as requested. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 22:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inappropriate closure messageEdit

You closed discussion in Talk:Quantum supremacy § Requested move 3 January 2023 stating that there was a consensus to continue with the current article title. I disagree with your analysis. There are currently two editors (Michaelmalak and myself) supporting the move, and two editors (Tercer and Smedja) opposing. I agree that there is not a consensus to move the page, but that's different from there being a consensus to continue with the current title.      — Freoh 15:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi editor Freoh, and thank you for coming to my talk page! I agree with you and must ask your forgiveness, because for some reason I missed your bolded "support". Your rationale was noted, but without a bulleted support at the beginning, it just sort of blended in with the nom's rationale. My bad. Editor Michaelmalak, I've reclosed the request as "no consensus". Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 16:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 16 January 2023Edit

Houghton HallEdit

After Talk:Houghton Hall, Yorkshire#Requested move 21 January 2022 and User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Archive 22#Houghton Hall there was a RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 25#Sussex and Yorkshire disambiguators where there was quite a clear consensus to to use the longer forms so could you please modify the close to move back to Houghton Hall, East Riding of Yorkshire please, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Renamed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 22:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Reverted – see User talk:Necrothesp#Houghton Hall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 20:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article categories in redirects?Edit

Hey, P.I.E.. Do we really put a bunch of mainspace article categories within redirects, like is done Here? Please advise me, oh wise one. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 22:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page watcher) @WikiWikiWayne: It's not prohibited (see Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects), and happens often - particularly if the category applies to the redirect but not to the page that the redir points to. For example, Category:1993 births belongs on Tyre Nichols because he was born in 1993, but it does not belong on Killing of Tyre Nichols because a killing cannot be said to have a year of birth. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much, Redrose64 🌹! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 23:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, thanks for your help with the template. It's been an age since I last added one. Best regards, Graham.Graham Beards (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pleasure, editor Graham Beards! Going to treat your request as technical and move it back. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 14:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks.Graham Beards (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.



  • Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
  • Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 4 February 2023Edit

Link redirects to WD?Edit

I noticed your note at Template:R with Wikidata item/doc. I'm not sure this actually still true; I seem to be able to do this. Can you confirm this? — Qwerfjkltalk 21:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To editor Qwerfjkl: this refers to situations where an editor finds a redirect that, say, targets a section in a Wikipedia article. The editor also sees that there is a Wikidata item for that redirect that links to articles on other-language Wikis, but the item page does not link to the enwiki redirect. So the editor can use the first parameter to link to the Wikidata item page. Or, if the editor thinks the redirect would be a valid link from Wikidata, then they can use the hack to link the item page to the redirect, and then the first parameter would not have to be used. I know that Wikidata editors are working to fix this, but I haven't heard that it's been fixed yet. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 01:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual ReportEdit

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report

Our 2022 Annual Report is now ready for review.


  • Overview of Backlog-reduction progress
  • Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page
  • Membership news and results of elections
  • Closing words
– Your Guild coordinators: Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move requestEdit

Hello @Paine Ellsworth I have created Lag Jaa Gale (TV series) which I want to be moved to Lag Ja Gale without leaving a redirect. I'm creator and I assume it's totally Uncontroversial requests. If you could assist me with the page move or guide me with the relevant venue to ask for assistance. Thanks for your consideration. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 14:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To editor C1K98V: thank you for coming to my talk page! Like to archive these messages rather than to delete them. Sorry I didn't get back to you quickly, and was going to suggest keeping the redirect and tagging it with {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} and either {{R from alternative spelling}} or {{R from misspelling}}, whichever applies. I see you did have the redirect deleted, and that's okay, no big deal. That article you wrote looks like a very good page on the television series! Keep up the good work, and again, thanks for coming! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect with commas and ampersandEdit

PE. How do I create a long redirect that has commas and an ampersand? Cement, Tolenas & Tidewater Railroad Company truncates after the first comma. Teach me, don't launch it. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 05:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I bludgeoned my way in. It's up. Thanks! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 05:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:Gun laws in WashingtonEdit

Just wanted to quickly explain my edit at Talk:Gun laws in Washington. It really is a dab page, not a SIA, so I converted it right before I also updated the talk page. Someone reverted the main page without also reverting the talk page, so that's how it wound up like that. Not planning to go back to it, so I do sincerely appreciate the clean up there. Station1 (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good template good pacementEdit

This is a to-the-point addition :-) Referring to our earlier discussion in this area (when IMO a similar template not being useful in /doc area), it follows that this is a useful placement. Adding the number of transclusions in taht template might be helpful too (motivating the protection for Talkpage visitors). DePiep (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I agree. That is a very useful template. I try my best to only use useful templates on Wikipedia. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
:-) DePiep (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for adding MCIfA to the list ... but it has just been removed from the lead of Chloe Duckworth (can't get umlaut on phone) with edit comment saying that Memberships aren't listed, only Fellowships (CIfA doesn't have fellowships). So should we not have added it to the template - my bad? I'm not a postnoms geek: please advise. Thanks. PamD 12:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page watcher) @PamD: If you can type the ampersand & and semicolon ; in your mobile, you should be able to enter the letter as a HTML character entity reference: in this case &euml; produces ë - Chloë Duckworth. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Redrose64 Thanks: trying it here ... &eum; ... but it was a lot quicker to use the redirect which I knew existed. Will remember that useful listing for another time. PamD 13:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, got it wrong. PamD 13:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, looking again (on serious computer) I can see I missed the "l"! So ... ë ... that should do it. Thanks again. PamD 14:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To editor PamD: before we let it go, I've placed the template in the ibox, since the reverter's es clearly stated it's not to be used "inline". We'll see. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 20 February 2023Edit

Editing news 2023 #1Edit

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this newsletter

This newsletter includes two key updates about the Editing team's work:

  1. The Editing team will finish adding new features to the Talk pages project and deploy it.
  2. They are beginning a new project, Edit check.

Talk pages project

Some of the upcoming changes

The Editing team is nearly finished with this first phase of the Talk pages project. Nearly all new features are available now in the Beta Feature for Discussion tools.

It will show information about how active a discussion is, such as the date of the most recent comment. There will soon be a new "Add topic" button. You will be able to turn them off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion. Please tell them what you think.

Daily edit completion rate by test group: DiscussionTools (test group) and MobileFrontend overlay (control group)

An A/B test for Discussion tools on the mobile site has finished. Editors were more successful with Discussion tools. The Editing team is enabling these features for all editors on the mobile site.

New Project: Edit Check

The Editing team is beginning a project to help new editors of Wikipedia. It will help people identify some problems before they click "Publish changes". The first tool will encourage people to add references when they add new content. Please watch that page for more information. You can join a conference call on 3 March 2023 to learn more.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the warm welcomeEdit

@Paine Ellsworth thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia. This is much appreciated. In a nutshell, my personal mission is to support Wikipedia to benefit from emerging infrastructures to cite open source software by persistent identfiers, such as Digital Object Identifiers (DOI). I understand that all modifications to templates (like adding another optional attribute) are consensus-based and take time. Could you maybe advise (-> RTFM / FAQ) how long such iterations usually take (from a request for improvement to implementation) [weeks, months, longer] ? This is probably a very naive newbie question... PIXEL2021 (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a pleasure, PIXEL2021! Yes, sometimes there is little or no opposition to new parameters, and sometimes it takes longer. Probably helps to be as detailed as you can be, and in this case it helps if you know how to edit templates using [wikimarkup]. That seems to be what the editor wants who turned down the proposal at Template talk:Infobox organization. That's just temporary until a viable sandbox version is made. Then the request can be reopened and revisited. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To editor PIXEL2021: have placed a new parameter, |ror_id= in the [sandbox] and [testcases] of {{Infobox organization}}. Wasn't exactly sure where to put it, so it's placed after "affiliations" and before "budget". Is that a good placement? or can you think of a better place for the parameter to go? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 01:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth: Thank you for demonstrating how the sandbox environment ist used! The placement looks very good to me. So by analogy, I should/could do the same for a new optional DOI parameter for Template:Infobox software/doc via the Template:Infobox software/sandbox, correct ? PIXEL2021 (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, it's a pleasure! Yes, in fact it's almost always a good idea to test edits in the sandbox of a template before "going live". Goes especially for templates that are high-use or high-risk. High-use means the template is used on 2,000 – 100,000 pages, and high-risk are those used on more than 100,000 pages. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To editor PIXEL2021: went ahead and implemented the new ROR parameter in the ibox template. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 06:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth: Awesome, thank you so much for pushing this ! Will update the ROR for Open Source Geospatial Foundation (OSGeo) and similiar organisations ASAP. However, I tried to follow the procedure you laid out for the ROR parameter in Template:Infobox organization for Template:Infobox software/sandbox first and then in Template:Infobox software/testcases for the parameters ROR and DOI. Both make sense as a software can have its own unique DOI while also being associated with an organisation / ROR ID (e.g. OSGeo). For some reason (which is currently beyond my newbee skills), publishing these changes in the sandbox "do not show" (label|data 27 and label|data 28). The changes are recorded in the revisions of both sandbox and testcases. Can you please advise how to fix this ? PIXEL2021 (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, it's my pleasure and glad to be of help, PIXEL2021! Just fyi, you don't have to ping me here on my talk page where notification is automatic when you post here. We should probably slow down a little for now, because if you've been following your edit request, you know that it's been opposed with a suggestion to use WP:Authority control instead. Discussion is ongoing. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your support and advice. PIXEL2021 (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 9 March 2023Edit

Proposal for new parameter on Template:Infobox musical artistEdit

Hi there! I hope this is the right place to share this. I posted a proposal for a new parameter that will be beneficial for Wikipedia readers on the talk page for Template: Infobox musical artist, however the page seems to be somewhat inactive and requires consent from an administrator. Here is my proposal and I hope you agree:

I am advocating a new parameter to reasonably replace "Associated acts". This parameter, "Protégé of" will be specifically reserved for Musical Acts billed as Individuals. Theoretically, this parameter will serve the same function as "Spinoff of" with musical groups, giving readers the ability to see which artist, producer, or talent manager discovered the subject of the article.

The inclusion of this parameter comes adds encyclopedic value as the figure who discovered an artist is a key characteristic of how the artists' career plays out event-wise, what makes them distinctive, and will be information that is found in the article. In the modern day music industry and the future, an artists success is nearly based entirely on connections and collaboration.[1] Readers need the ability to briefly skim at the infobox and see which individual is best associated with the success of the article subject – adding to the encyclopedic value of why that artist is worthy of a Wikipedia article. In many cases, an artist is most known for being under the wing of another artist or producer, or in other cases, a reader may not know who was the individual to sign (to their label), mentor, or executive produce the career/discography of an artist. If this is new information to the reader, it may serve as incentive to read the entire article and give context behind their discovery.

This parameter will tie-in seamlessly with all other information on the Musical artist Infobox as well as the article. A rule for this parameter is that the individual must already be mentioned in the article and cited, must executive produce their breakout project (album or EP that launched their career into mainstream notability), and must have a proof of signing to that individuals record label or company. "Protégé of" will consist of typically no more that 1 name mentioned – however in some cases of a joint-venture signing, there may be 2 or 3 names mentioned.

In conclusion, this parameter will simply be a version of "Spinoff_of" except for individual artists. Associated acts, over a period of time got too cluttered and spammy; this resolves that issue and provides readers a meaningful replacement that incentivizes further research, extracts important information, justifies the subjects encyclopedic notability, and gives otherwise unknown information to readers of Wikipedia. A makeshift version has been implemented by myself and other members including @JuanBoss105 and @Rosie McConnel without my prompt or awareness, however they were reversed due to lack of consensus on here. When I added with this edit, it has been met with acceptance and non-revertion among editors. Here are examples of how this parameter will be used:

StreetKnockerzEnt (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To editor StreetKnockerzEnt: thank you very much for coming to my talk page! I'll be glad to look things over and then perhaps respond at Template talk:Infobox musical artist#New parameter vote (Protégé of). P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I contacted directly because the talk page seems to be mostly inactive; I’ve even contacted another frequent editor, Binksternet, and have gotten no response. I’d like to hear your opinion on whether this parameter should be implemented or not; and if so, how it could be done. StreetKnockerzEnt (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Guild of Copy Editors March 2023 NewsletterEdit

Guild of Copy Editors March 2023 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the March 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since December and our Annual Report for 2022. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. We extend a warm welcome to all of our new members, including those who have signed up for our current March Backlog Elimination Drive. We wish you all happy copy-editing.

Election results: In our December 2022 coordinator election, Reidgreg and Tenryuu stepped down as coordinators; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo were returned as coordinators until 1 July. For the second time, no lead coordinator was chosen. Nominations for our mid-year Election of Coordinators open on 1 June (UTC).

Drive: 21 editors signed up for our January Backlog Elimination Drive, 14 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 170 articles totaling 389,737 words. Barnstars awarded are here.

Blitz: Our February Copy Editing Blitz focused on October and November 2022 requests, and the March and April 2022 backlogs. Of the 14 editors who signed up, nine claimed at least one copy-edit; and between them, they copy-edited 39,150 words in 22 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

Drive: Sign up now for our month-long March Backlog Elimination Drive. Barnstars awarded will be posted here after the drive closes.

Progress report: As of 12:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 73 requests since 1 January 2023, all but five of them from 2022, and the backlog stands at 1,872 articles.

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 and Zippybonzo.

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

The Signpost: 20 March 2023Edit