User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Undiscussed changes

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Full disclosure: I started the WP articles on Women in Daoism, Daoist mediation, etc. and prefer D- over T-aoism. We can agree that Taoism is more frequently used than Daoism in nonacademic contexts, and that WP:COMMON applies to titles, but there is no basis for with making wholesale changes of content spelling without discussion or meaningful consensus. English Taoism and Daoism are in free variation, and arbitrarily changing one to the other seems as unconstructive as changing American English to British English. If you want to pursue this path, I suggest we seek wider discussion from a forum such as WikiProject China. Keahapana (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

To editor Keahapana: I apologize for my effort to make all usages and spellings consistent. At least my intentions were good, because I do not want our readers confused by our sometimes using "Daoism" rather than "Taoism". Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 04:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for apologizing, Paine. While I can appreciate wanting to impose consistency, "Taoism" (based on outdated Wade-Giles romanization) is an inconsistent exception to the WP pinyin rule. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Romanization recommends using current academic standards (such as "Daoism") for toneless pinyin ("Dao"), with exemptions for WP:ZHNAME AND WP:COMMON. The 173 page titles in Category:Taoism uniformly use pinyin (Laozi instead of Lao Tzu) with the exception a few personal names (Mantak Chia) and four common W-G based words: Tao, Taoism, Tao Te Ching, and Tai chi (misspelled twice). I can't imagine that WP readers would be confused by Daoism/Taoism or any other commonplace free variant spellings such as gray/grey or yogurt/yoghurt. For instance, the grey article title uses BrE spelling, while Shades of gray uses AmE. Searching for these terms on en.wikipedia.org finds 215,000 ghits for "grey" and 336,000 for "gray". Also, you explained the move on Talk:Women in Taoism as, "Moved. See general agreement below to be WP:CONSISTENT with the main article title, Taoism." Does a tied vote of 1-1 signify limited interest or general agreement? There was no discussion about moving Daoist meditation, summarized as "uniformity with Taoism and other similar articles." I'm sorry if this sounds dickish. I'm a retired academic who has studied and taught Daoism for over fifty years, and strongly favor using the D- over T- spelling. While I've never heard anyone mispronounce Daoism, I've heard countless (/ˈtaʊ.ɪzəm/) mispronunciations of Taoism, as I imagine you have too. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

To editor Keahapana: heh, heard countless times? yes, which includes from my own mouth even to this day. One sees the "T" and finds it difficult to remember the "D" sound. In the case of Women in Taoism, the nominator's rationale is considered as an automatic "support", so the !vote count was actually 2:1 with strong rationales in support of the rename. Since the WP:CONSISTENCY policy applies to article titles, I have reverted most of my edits within the articles' contents. Feel free to change others where you see it as an improvement. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 02:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

To editor Paine Ellsworth:. Thank you very much for a wise (Solomonic-ish?) compromise, and yes, the final score was 2-1. I agree with using "Taoism" instead of "Daoism" in titles if the articles can use either variant. It's always encouraging to interact with reasonable people editing Wikipedia. Your reversions of T- to D- are fine and I noticed a few that were originally "D-" quotes. To show my appreciation, I've moved and fixed redirects for two other articles that I started with "(Daoism)" titles: Pu (Daoism) to Pu (simplicity) and Shijie (Daoism) to Shijie (corpse liberation). Chinese Buddhism adapted and used both these terms. The moves made me realize that many parenthetic "X (Taoism)"-type titles, excluding ones like Women in Taoism, presuppose the WP reader has studied Daoism or the Chinese language. Do you think that I should also move your Chu (Taoism) title to Chu (kitchen)? Anyway, thanks again and Happy New Year! Keahapana (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

PS, oops, someone has already criticized the Pu (simplicity) title. Oh well, next year. Keahapana (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

To editor Keahapana: it is about three hours away from "next year" (where we are), and isn't it interesting that your critic specifically mentions "Chu (Taoism)" not being "Chu (kitchen)"? Perhaps we should wait and see how that discussion goes? And a read of WP:NCDAB might give some insight? Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 02:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Emu close

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, I appreciate your close on Emu's TV programmes, but I feel it was incorrect. That specific title was not an option raised by any one editor so I'm not sure how it is a more valid option then one which had a 2-1 favor in. Just to make it clear, I would have opposed such a title as that isn't how WP:NCTV disambiguates titles. --Gonnym (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

To editor Gonnym: agree that there was strong support for the favored option; however, when the RM began, it started as a "Emu's TV Series → ?", which gives more leeway to closers, plus the opposition made some strong points against the later-proposed "Emu (franchise)". The turning point was when I read the WP:NCTV#Media franchise section of the guideline, which tells us to use "franchise" as a qualifier for articles that span more than just television. "Emu" appears to have appeared only on TV, so the term "programmes" came to mind, which made what I thought to be an acceptable natural disambiguator. If I haven't changed your mind, I will be glad to change the outcome to something that is more agreeable to all. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 16:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I understand. This is a similar situation to Talk:Treasure Island (TV franchise)#Requested move 9 August 2018 where the "thing" as a series of TV series. --Gonnym (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, very similar. And the new title for that article was referred to as the "least objectionable" during that debate, plus the closer did as I did by leaving the outcome open to a new RM. Guess in this case I thought the same about "Emu's TV programmes", since it does use, at least, the British spelling of "programs". What would you like to do? Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 16:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #025, 30 Dec 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

We can now crop the tops of pics to make banners

Before, we could only cut off the bottom of pics.

User:FR30799386 has pulled it off, and made the upgrade to {{Portal image banner}}...

So, this:

Niagara falls, from the Canadian side

Becomes this:

Niagara falls, from the Canadian side

Here's the code for the above banner:

{{Portal image banner|File:American Falls from Canadian side in winter.jpg | [[Niagara falls]], from the Canadian side |maxheight=175px |overflow=Hidden|croptop=10}}

To see it employed in a portal, check out Portal:Niagara Falls.

About that end of the year goal...

We were racing against time to create 5,000 portals by the end of the year (just for the heck of it).

We made it. We've passed the 5,000 portals mark, with time to spare!

And the 5,000th portal is Portal:Major League Baseball, by Happypillsjr.

Congratulations!

What's next?

The 10,000th portal mark. But...

...there is plenty else to do in addition to building new portals:

The new portals need to be linked to from the encyclopedia.
On those portals about subjects that are not typically capitalized, the search parameters need to be refined/expanded, to maximize the chances of Did you know and In the news items being found and displayed.
A Recognized content section needs to be added to each portal that has a corresponding WikiProject.
Addition of a category on those portals that lack a subject category.
Implement the portal category system, adding the appropriate categories to each portal.
Upgrade, and complete (as per the tasks enumerated above), the old-style portals that are not regularly maintained, which have not been converted yet (about 1,100 of them).
Find and fix the remaining bugs in the underlying lua modules.
Build portal tools (scripts) to assist in the creation, development, and maintenance of portals.
Build a script to help build navbox footer templates, via the harvesting of categories, amongst other methods.
Update the portal building instructions.
Update the portal guideline.
Refine the programming of the portals to reduce their load time.
Design and develop the next generation of portals and portal components.

And whatever else you can dream up.

But most of all, have a...

Happy New Year!

Paine Ellsworth, thank you for your contributions to the Portals Project, and have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year.

Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 12:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Double T, and we wish you and yours the Happiest of New Years! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 12:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

LGBT slang

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, just a heads-up that I reverted a series of changes you made at LGBT slang which introduced unnecessary pipes in links which were already working properly and targeting the correct page. It is generally against policy to replace a wikilink containing a working redirect, per WP:NOPIPE and WP:DONOTFIXIT, although there can be occasions where it is justified. If using popups, please watch your settings, and be sure to keep Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups/About fixing redirects in mind which gives a detailed explanation of why this kind of change is generally not a good idea. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Mathglot, can you please be more specific? The only change I've made to the LGBT slang article is to include the sidebar template back in July. And if you refer to links in that sidebar, then I suggest you revert your edits and bypass any redirects you've made in that sidebar. This is one "occasion where it is justified". It is justified because when you install a sidebar or navbar template in an article, you want the article's title to be in non-linked, black, boldface type. If the link is a redirect, then it will appear as a blue link, and it will self-link back to the article. So if the reversions you refer to are links in any sidebar or navbar template, then you really need to self-revert. Happy New Year to you and yours! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 05:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that was the case. I reverted after testing the black type and it was just as you said. It's rather annoying that the relevant guidelines don't mention this, and the tools page for popups definitely should as well. Thanks for pointing that out, and sorry for the bother. Mathglot (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The editing guideline you want is at WP:BRINT. If you think it should be mentioned in other places, then by all means do so. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 06:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Close of requested move at Talk:Lunar Roving Vehicle

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, you closed this with the comment: "See general agreement below to stay with the present title style." Consequently, this has the appearance of being treated as a vote? It appears inconsistent with a close, rather than superficial assessment of the evidence presented. I note this observation following the close. I also note Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus, WP:NOTVOTE and WP:NCCAP among others. Given how this "appears", would you please clarify how this has been assessed IAW the instructions, applicable policy and guidelines, and the evidence (as a whole)? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Cinderella157, and thank you for the discussion. I agree with SMcCandlish that yours was the most detailed treatment in the debate. Might want to give WP:SUPERVOTE a read, because it appears that is what you think I've done. When I wrote "general agreement", it can also be read as "consensus", so the statement becomes "See 'consensus' below to stay with the present title style." My statement was an undetailed assessment of consensus in the debate. I've closed several similar types of debates, some in favor of decapping and some not; however, in this case I concluded that the opposition made the strongest arguments. I could be wrong, and since the timing might be borderline (it had been nearly two days since the most recent !vote and rationale in the Survey section), I would be happy to reopen and relist the debate if you prefer. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 15:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, substituting "consensus" for "agreement" does not help clarify this for me nor does WP:SUPERVOTE, since it applies to actions by the closer. I quote from closing instructions:

Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions. [emphasis added]

An arguement based on a premise that is inaccurate, has no substantial weight. These same instructions require a very good reason to ignore rules. The principle opponent to the move made this statement near the end, which is tantamount to acknowledging the case to move, while making an appeal to WP:COMMONSENSE (eg ignore rules - but do they present very good reason?).

My purpose here has been to clarify the basis for the close since it is not apparent to me (given the brevity of the closing comment - which in either cases [ie even substituting consensus], gives the impression of it being closed as a vote). As you offer, relisting may be an option. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed analysis. We will have to agree to disagree on some points. Randy Kryn's !vote and rationale was not changed after their statement you linked, so I consider usage of "tantamount" to be an overstatement of the facts. I'm sorry if the brevity of my closing statement was not enough to clarify the basis for the close for you. And I doubt if most editors would consider it a !vote or a !supervote. I did offer to reopen and relist, though I don't see a different outcome happening as a result. Your statement, "relisting may be an option", does not make it clear to me that you want that to be done. Is that how you want to go forward? Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 03:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I will be direct. Please provide a detailed explanation of how the evidence was weighed in this specific case to reach the conclusion of a consensus not to move. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that an objective reading of the debate would show the reader that the closure was reasonable and was consistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, and guidelines. Since you were involved and might not be able to be objective, then you are entitled to disagree with me. Again, I would be glad to take the debate wherever you think it should go. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 14:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I apologize, Cinderella157, for I have been swamped lately and have been unable to adequately address your concerns here. I realize that you have opened a Move review discussion; however, I still think that a more detailed treatment is warranted as you have described. You would like to know how the evidence was weighed that lead me to conclude that there was a consensus to maintain the status quo.

To begin, the obvious question that, when answered, would decide the requested move is, "Is the title a proper noun phrase, or not?" The first ngrams supplied were by the nom, and at first they tended to send one toward the "common noun" view. Then another editor rebutted with more ngrams and the opinion that both their and the nom's ngrams supported the "proper noun" view. There was a back-and-forth that proved interesting; however, it shed little more light. A third editor questioned the validity of much of the ngrams analysis, which sparked further debate on whether or not the article is about an entity(ies) with the proper name "Lunar Roving Vehicle", or is it about generic entities with the identifier "lunar roving vehicle". That ended without settlement. And that all happens in the section prior to the survey.

As I read through the first few rationales of the survey, I got the distinct impression that the nom was arguing that there were no other lunar rovers that were specifically called "lunar roving vehicles". Call me crazy, but that actually supports the "proper name" view for the subjects of this article. To clarify, the subjects of this article are lunar rovers, each of which is referred to as "Lunar Roving Vehicle". It seemed to me that the more the nom wrote, the weaker they made their argument.

More !votes and rationales, and we have yet to come to any support for the rename. Then the first support comes from you, and your argument was detailed and specific. I agreed with parts and disagreed with parts; however, that's not why I was there. I weighed your issues along with the other issues in the debate just as I always do. And I scrutinized the responses as well. At this point it appeared to me that the nom was blind to a valid rebuttal argument, that there are lunar roving vehicles outside the Apollo program.

The conclusion to me was clear. The editors who had opposed the request had made their case, and the title of the article should remain in place as a proper noun phrase. Again, I am very sorry that I've been unable to properly respond to your concerns until now. I don't expect to change any minds with all this; however, I think we all recognize the value of debate, and that without it, there is no improvement to Wikipedia. Thanks again for coming to my talk page! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 05:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, your last post but one left me with the distinct impression that I would not be receiving the explanation you have now offered and for which I thank you. I would much prefer discussing this with you than any other course. I would offer the following observations.

Because of how MOS:CAPS deals with the matter of what a proper name is, the primary question is not whether it is a proper name but whether it is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources. The consideration of whether it is a proper name is subsidiary and of little or no consequence to the question. Is the n-gram data conclusive? What is a substantial majority? Does it reach the threshold? A supermajority is typically 2/3? Can the raw n-gram data be accepted at face value?

Saying "the n-gram data shows" (or similar), is a false premise if it only considers that alone?

A case was made to distinguish the generic from the specific and that the specific was then a proper name. Does it qualify the n-gram data to favour a conclusion for capitalisation in a way similar to usage of caps in headings, figures and like (but not running prose) favours decapping? The OP has responded to this in detail but most significant: "... But none of this makes the n-grams evidence "bad"; that evidence is from the Google Books corpus, and only one of your links is within that corpus ..."

An alternative is to argue the generic/specific/proper name on onomastic grounds. To simply state "it is a proper name" is unsubstantiated. To state that it is a proper name because it is capitalised to distinguish it from the generic is a case but it is only valid if it is consistent with onomastic theory and if WP is silent on the use of caps in such a way. I made reference to theory (cited authorities) that it is not. I do not see any counter claim so supported? You might wish to take a look at Proper name. You will see that what I have said is quite consistent with that. What most people were taught in grade 5 (or so) on this is a very simplifed version appropriate to that age. Unfortunately, that is all that most people were taught and the simplification leads to misperceptions/misconceptions.

I will give you an example:

The dog bit him. "Dog" is generic.

The black dog from next-door bit him Refers to a specific dog. Yet, it is not a proper name nor is it capitalised.

The black roving dog bit him. If you prefer or

The lunar roving dog bit him. In each case, it is the definite article that makes it specific but:

A black roving dog bit him. The indefinite article makes it not specific.

In the RfC a comment was made that "lunar roving vehicle" was analogous to "Ford" in the phrase "Ford car". Try substituting it into that phrase though.

You have stated, "The editors who had opposed the request had made their case" but I see little in your response as to what this case is? You also refer to "valid rebuttal argument" and would ask what (if any) has been made wrt my comment? From your rational, it appears to me that you have closed on the basis that it is a proper name but on an onomastic basis (or at least, a perceived need to differentiate the generic from the specific) and not on the basis of usage per the quote from MOS:CAPS?

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, I am thankful for your thoughtful remarks. It is not always easy to distinguish between notable subjects that have proper names and notable subjects that generically describe those same things that have proper names. This appears to me to be a situation where editors in the RM debate disagreed with your detailed analysis. They may have disagreed because they did not fully understand your analysis, or they may have understood and chose to disagree. Either way, they decided to oppose the rename, and some did not alter their oppose !votes and rationales even after you posted your support rationale.

I think that the question of whether or not the subjects of that article are each properly named "Lunar Roving Vehicle" is significant and a substantial issue in any decision to rename that article. And that is the case that was made by opposers in the debate. Some would disagree, as shown by your stand and by that taken by another editor in the debate; however, at least at present, consensus as defined by Wikipedia seems clear. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 06:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Per your immediately above: "I think that the question of whether or not the subjects of that article are each properly named "Lunar Roving Vehicle" is significant and a substantial issue in any decision to rename that article." This appears to be an onomastic arguement but one for which no authorities have been presented to support - ie, that such a distinction is a real and proper use of capitalisation to assert a noun phrase is a proper name. Yes, there is evidence that some sources do so, but there is no evidence that this is widely done in this case (and meeting the criteria of MOS:CAPS). The evidence presented by the IP editor did not sufficiently establish that this impacted the n-gram data since only one of the sample set they presented was in the sample set of the n-gram data (as noted at the time). Without reference to evidence or authorities, comments made to oppose the move are simply opinion. Clearly, the n-gram data alone cannot establish usage - either to capitalise in headings or for distinction. To claim the n-gram data alone supports a conclusion is a false premise. To assess that such comments "make a case", is to give them weight of some significance and reduce the assessment to what is in essence, a vote. How then, is the close consistent with the closing instructions?

I have asked in respect to "valid rebuttal" made in respect to my comments - since you raided this as a point wrt the OP.

At Talk:Lunar Roving Vehicle#Proper name, you make this statement: "... it is incorrect to precede a proper name with an article, whether definite or indefinite ..." You will note that the article has used the definite article with the capped version at several places. This, I raised with my comment. You will also note the n-gram submitted by Randy Kryn (searching "the lunar roving vehicle" and which returned much the same result (proportionally) as "lunar roving vehicle"). You will also note the quote in the atricle (attributed to Harrison Schmitt): "The Lunar Rover proved to be the reliable ..." and the source this was quoted from has a reference "Boeing LRV Systems Engineering, Lunar Rover Operations Handbook, Doc. LS006-002-2H, Huntsville, Alabama, 19 April 1971." But we have this article: Lunar rover. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you once again for explaining your stand in support of the page move. I myself stand by all the statements I've made thus far, and I think that my closure was appropriate, reasonable and in line with WP:RMCI#Determining consensus. Moreover, several other editors at WP:MRV#Lunar Roving Vehicle agree, and so have endorsed my closure. I'm very thankful for their support of the difficult decision that had to be made! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 07:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Moving page

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Could you please point me to the policy and guideline that support such a move? NCTV was the only relevant guide and it does NOT say it needs to be "List of". This seems like a rather bullshit move considering there definitely was NOT a consensus to move. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Bignole, and thank you for coming to my talk page! Sorry for the delay in responding; I've been swamped lately. The guidelines cited were Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#List articles and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, which made it clear that such articles, list articles, should begin in the manner of the requested move. The policy cited is at Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title, specifically WP:CONSISTENCY, and that rounded it out for me. In a case like this where the request has already been relisted (twice), there is little leeway to relist a third time, especially when consensus (to rename) appears to be clear. It is also clear to me that you are one of the editors who have been working very long and hard to improve that article, and since there are many articles on Wikipedia for which I, too, have a sense of stewardship, I know where you're coming from, so I definitely assume good faith on your part. (No worries about the bad language as I don't have virgin ears.) Please let me know – how would you like to go forward? Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 04:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

This is the section: "Disambiguation for list articles related to television productions should be used where necessary to make clear which title is being discussed. If the main TV series page title was disambiguated from other entertainment properties (e.g. other TV series, films, novels, etc.), related list pages may or may not need to be further disambiguated, depending on whether other list articles exist. Otherwise, the series title is sufficient. " - It says it must be disambiguated where necessary, it does not say "list of" must go in front. Secondly, that is for list pages, and this is clearly NOT a list, which is what myself and everyone else that was opposing the move was stating. Again, if something is done wrong you shouldn't be able to use CONSISTENT as an argument for continuing to do it wrong. There are a lot of "List of" pages that are in fact NOT lists. This is one. As was Glee and several others that were moved or originally titled "list of". Technically, the original title, or even the "Smallville characters" suggestion was far closer to the first 4 of those criteria on the article title policy page than the current title. The only argument that anyone had for changing was because "other pages go by that setup". Except they shouldn't. So, I'm curious as to how there could be a consensus to move when you have a group of people arguing that the page isn't a list page (thus shouldn't be a list), the current title is more in-line with title naming policy vs. people whose only argument was "other pages are like this". To be clear, I wasn't using profanity at you, only in expression of my annoyance over the perceived "consensus" move that to me was not actually supported by any real argument nor policy or guideline. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I know that you understand that I must remain objective if I am to close RM debates reasonably and to try to ensure that my closures are consistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, and guidelines. You do have options here, and I think you've been around long enough to know what your options are. So let me wish you and yours the Happiest of New Years! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 14:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Move review for Lunar Roving Vehicle

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has asked for a Move review of Lunar Roving Vehicle. 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. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Pending final closure?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What on earth does "Pending final closure" mean at Talk:Ian Watkins (Lostprophets)? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Jax 0677, that page is fully move protected, so I put in a request at WP:RM#Uncontroversial technical requests for an admin to add the qualifier. I see that Anthony Appleyard has already moved the page. Best to you! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 21:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Zayn Malik's native name

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, why Zayn's name is written in urdu. I mean he is only of Pakistani decent, his father is a British Pakistani but he is completely a British. Riz Ahmed is also a singer and actor of Pakistani decent and his name is written only in English on Wikipedia. So I request you to please remove Zayn's urdu name. Amanchhaudhary (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

To editor Amanchhaudhary: that is a good question and made me wonder. The article notes in Zayn's "Personal life" section that Zayn speaks Urdu, a tongue that is the official national language and lingua franca of Pakistan, and Zayn's father is British Pakistani. All that makes it likely that another editor added Zayn's name in the Nastaʿlīq script some time ago, and it appears to be an appropriate improvement. If I remove it, somebody would just revert the edit and add it back in. Thank you for coming to my talk page! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 10:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Amanchhaudhary (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Pleasure! Paine

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #026, 20 Jan 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Well, here's the first issue of the new year. Enjoy...

New participants

A hearty welcome to new arrivals to the portals department:

Harvesting categories tool prototype

DannyS712 has created a user script prototype, User:DannyS712/Cat links, that can pull members from a category, a functionality we've been after since the project's revamp last Spring. Now, it's a matter of applying this technique to scripts that will place the items where needed, such as with a section starter script and/or portal builder script.

New portals since last issue

What else is going on

There have been some discussions at Wikipedia talk:Portal guidelines.

DreamyJazz is working on a bot to place links to portals on root articles, category pages, and navigation footer templates.

Portal bugs are getting dealt with soon after they are reported.

Lots of wikignome activity (using Hotcat, etc.).

Keep up the good work. — The Transhumanist 08:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #027, 28 Jan 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Portal styles

For a visually intensive portal, see Portal:Hummingbirds.

If you find any other portals that stand out, please send me the links so I can include them in the next issue. Thank you.

Conversion continues

There are about 1100 portals left in the old style, with subpages and static excerpts. As those are very labor intensive to maintain (because their maintenance is manual), all those except the ones with active maintainers (about 100) are slated for upgrade = approximately 1000. We started with 1500, and so over a quarter of them have been processed so far. That's good, but at this rate, conversion will take another 3 years. So, some automation (AWB?) is in order. We just need to keep at it, and push down on the gas pedal a bit harder.

You can find the old-style portals with an insource search of "box portal skeleton".

Flagship portals: the portals on the Main Page

Speaking of upgrades...

The following portals are listed in the header at the top of Wikipedia's Main Page, and get far more traffic than all other portals:

Of those, all but one have been revamped to an automated self-updating single-page design.

The remaining one, Portal:Mathematics has manual maintainers, and has been partially upgraded.

As these are our flagship fleet, they need to be kept in top-notch condition.

Check 'em out, and improve them if you can.

And be sure they are on your watchlist.

New portals since last issue

Keep 'em coming!

Deorphanizing the new portals

As you know, thousands of the new portals are orphans, that is, having no links to them from article space. For all practical purposes, that means they are not part of the encyclopedia yet, and readers will be unlikely to find them.

What is needed are links to these portals from the See also sections of the corresponding root articles.

Dreamy Jazz to the rescue...

Dreamy Jazz has created a bot to place the corresponding category link to the end of each portal (if it is missing), and place a link to each portal in the See also section of the corresponding root articles.

That bot, named User:Dreamy Jazz Bot, is currently in its trial period performing the above described edits!

To take a look at the edits it has made so far, see Special:Contributions/Dreamy_Jazz_Bot.

It shouldn't be long before the bot is processing the entire set of new portals.

Good news indeed.

Way to go, Dreamy Jazz!

And, that's a wrap

That's all I have to report this time around.

No doubt there will be more to tell soon.

Until then, — The Transhumanist 13:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Wish

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. Help copy edit for article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you. Tauthanhhuyen34 (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

An association for Mesopedians

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi greetings, I created a Wikipedian association named m:Association of Mesopedianist Wikipedians for mesopedians. Would you mind joining in it? Regards.--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 14:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Op-Ed: Random Rewards Rejected

In focus: The Collective Consciousness of Admin Userpages

News and notes: WMF staff turntable continues to spin; Endowment gets more cash; RfA continues to be a pit of steely knives

In the media: The Signpost's investigative story recognized, Wikipedia turns 18 and gets a birthday gift from Google, and more editors are recognized

Discussion report: The future of the reference desk

Featured content: Don't miss your great opportunity

Arbitration report: An admin under the microscope

Traffic report: Death, royals and superheroes: Avengers, Black Panther

Technology report: When broken is easily fixed

Gallery: Let us build a memorial fit for such pain and suffering

News from the WMF: News from WMF

Recent research: Ad revenue from reused Wikipedia articles; are Wikipedia researchers asking the right questions?

Essay: How

Humour: Village pump

From the archives: An editorial board that includes you

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #028, 04 Feb 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Here's a quicky status report:

Old-style portals: 1,018

Single-page portals: 4,367

Total portals: 5,385

But of course, there has been more going on than just that...

Dreamy Jazz Bot is up and running!

Dreamy Jazz Bot has been approved and is now up and running.

What it does is places missing links to orphaned portals. It places a link in the See also section of the corresponding root article, and it puts one at the top of the corresponding category page.

We have thousands of new portals that have yet to be added to the encyclopedia proper, just waiting to go live.

When they do go live, over the coming days or weeks, due to Dreamy Jazz Bot, it will be like an explosion of new portals on the scene. We should expect an increase in awareness and interest in the portals project. Perhaps even new participants.

Get ready...

Get set...

Go!

Another sockpuppet infiltrator has been discovered

User:Emoteplump, a recent contributor to the portals project, was discovered to be a sockpuppet account of an indefinitely blocked user.

When that happens, admins endeavor to eradicate everything the editor contributed. This aftermath has left a wake of destruction throughout the portals department, again.

The following portals which have been speedy deleted, are in the process of being re-created. Please feel free to help to turn these blue again:

And the corresponding talk pages:

New portals since the last issue

Keep up the great work

Until next time, — The Transhumanist 09:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect move close at Talk:John Cain (junior)

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I'm a bit confused at what just happened there. I'm sure you read the entire discussion but I was definitely taking the discussion to an end when I prompted people to make a yes or no on the John Cain option, which was the most popular by a plurality at that point. If less than a majority of the participants would indicate "yes" to the John Cain option, I would then ask people about another option supported by others. Initially myself, The Drover's Wife, an IP user, Nickm57, Born2cycle and Jacknstock supported the John Cain proposal over the other proposals. That is six participants while the (XXth Premier of Victoria) proposal had Ben Aveling, BD2412 and Amakuru, three participants. Four participants favoured (politician, born XXXX): Roman Spinner, Necrothesp, Narky Blert and Scott Davis. JackofOz and Gnangarra proposed their own alternatives. Out of the proposals the tally was 6-4-3-1-1, with the name you moved it to being the third most favoured.

Then when prompted on being either John Cain alone or not, Scott Davis approved of it, while Gnangarra opposed. Roman Spinner, Narky Blert and Amakuru already indicated they opposed John Cain alone when they wrote to support other proposals. That left 7 approving of John Cain alone, 4 opposing John Cain alone, and 4 other participants not yet indicating yes or no to John Cain alone. I had notified those participants who had not given either support or opposition to the John Cain alone proposal, which was six participants.

I thank you for taking the initiative to seek a close to the discussion but there's no harm in letting it continue for a bit longer so that we can establish which proposal can get an actual majority of the participants, as I was systematically doing. Can we move this back to its former title and open the discussion back up again? Cheers, Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Onetwothreeip. Just received a thank you notice from one of the other editors for closing and moving those pages. Not sure how to proceed. Usually when an editor asks to revert the move and reopen the RM I go ahead with it. In this case, there was a definite agreement that "John Cain (junior)" was an unsuitable article title, so rather than moving it back, perhaps the way forward is to reopen and relist the RM with opening notification to all involved of the moves made? Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 00:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Well you did choose the third most preferred option, not the first or second. It was pretty frustrating to wake up and find out that it was closed halfway through my attempt at bringing this to a consensus. As you can see I've been running the lists of who supports what and I've been pinging the people in the middle of things and so forth. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #029, 13 Feb 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Where we are at:

Single-page portals: 4,704

Total portals: 5,705

The Ref desks survived the proposal to shut them down

You might be familiar with the Ref desks, by their link on every new portal. They are a place you can go to ask volunteers almost any knowledge-related question, and have been a feature of Wikipedia since August of 2005 (or perhaps earlier). They were linked to from portals in an effort to improve their visibility, and to provide a bridge from the encyclopedia proper to project space (the Wikipedia community).

Well, somebody proposed that we get rid of them, and the community decided that that was not going to happen. Thank you for defending the Ref desks!

Here's a link to the dramatic discussion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Indefinitely_semiprotecting_the_refdesk#Proposal_II:_Shut_down_the_Ref_Desks

The cleanup after sockpuppet Emoteplump continues...

The wake of disruption left by Emoteplump and the admins who reverted many (but not all) of his/her edits is still undergoing cleanup. We could use all the help we can get on this task...

Almost all of the speedy deleted portals have been rebuilt from scratch.

For the portals he/she restarted (many of which were done mistakenly, overwriting restarts and further development that had already been done), and/or tagged as the maintainer, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Emoteplump&oldid=881568794#Additional_Portals_under_my_watch

10,000 portals, here we come...

We're at 5,705 portals and counting.

New portals since issue #28

Prior to 2018, for the previous 14 years, portal creation was at about 80 portals per year on average. We did over 3 times that in just the past 9 days. At this rate, we'll hit the 10,000 portal mark in 5 months. But, I'm sure we can do it sooner than that.

What's next for portal pages?

There are 5 drives for portal development:

Create new portals
Expand existing portals, such as with new sections like Recognized content
Convert or restart old-style portals into automated single-page portals
Link to new portals from the encyclopedia
Pageless portals

Let's take a closer look at these...

1: Creating new portals

Portal creation, for subjects that happen to have the necessary support structures already in place, is down to about a minute per portal. The creation part, which is automated, takes about 10 seconds. The other 50 seconds is taken up by manual activities, such as finding candidate subjects, inspecting generated portals, and selecting the portal creation template to be used according to the resources available. Tools are under development to automate these activities as much as possible, to pare portal creation time down even more. Ten seconds each is the goal.

Eventually, we are going to run out of navigation templates to base portals off of. Though there are still thousands to go. But, when they do run out, we'll need an easy way to create more. A nav footer creation script.

Meanwhile, other resources are being explored and developed, such as categories, and methods to harvest the links they contain.

2: Expanding existing portals

The portal collection is growing, not only by the addition of new portals, but by further developing the ones we already have, by...

Improving and/or adding search parameters to better power the Did you know and In the news sections.
Adding more selected content sections, like Selected biographies.
Adding and maintaining Recognized content sections, via JL-Bot.
Adding pictures to the image slideshow.
Adding panoramic pics.
Categorizing portals.

More features will be added as we dream them up and design them. So, don't be shy, make a wish.

3: Converting old portals

By far the hardest and most time-consuming task we have been working on is updating the old portals, the very reason we revamped this WikiProject in the first place.

There are two approaches here:

A) Restart a portal from scratch, using our automated tools. For basic no-frills portals, that works find. But, for more elaborate portals, as that tends to lose content and features, the following approach is being tried...

B) Upgrade a portal section by section, so little to nothing is lost in the process.

4: Linking to new portals

Or "portal deorphanization"...

Dreamy Jazz Bot is purring along.

And a tool in the form of a script is under development for linking to portals at the time they are created, or shortly thereafter.

5...

See below...

New WikiProject for the post-saved-portal phase of operations...

Saved portals, are portals with a saved page.

What is the next stage in the evolutionary progression?

Quantum portals.

What are quantum portals?

Portals that come into existence when you click on the portal button, and which disappear when you leave the page.

Or, as Pbsouthwood put it:

...portals that exist only as a probability function (algorithm) until you collapse the wave form by observing through the portal button (run the script), and disappear again after use...

Introducing...

Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals (see it's talk page).

Keep on keepin' on

...'til next time, — The Transhumanist 10:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NSFW

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Template:NSFW has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Gonnym, for this notification! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 18:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

LIght Year (Isakov song) listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect LIght Year (Isakov song). Since you had some involvement with the LIght Year (Isakov song) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, UnitedStatesian, for this notification! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 18:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

From the editors: Help wanted (still)

News and notes: Front-page issues for the community

In focus: Wikimedia affiliate organizations seek community participation in 2019 board election

Discussion report: Talking about talk pages

Featured content: Conquest, War, Famine, Death, and more!

Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbitration Committee

Traffic report: Binge-watching

Technology report: Tool labs casters-up

Gallery: Signed with pride

Recent research: Research finds signs of cultural diversity and recreational habits of readers

Essay: Optimist's guide to Wikipedia

From the archives: New group aims to promote Wiki-Love

Humour: Pesky Pronouns

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

User:SMcCandlish/It

This talk page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

Please discuss the matter at this page's entry on the Miscellany for deletion page.

You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, see the Guide to deletion.

This is a humorous essay.
It contains comments by one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, though it may contain advice. A potential measure of how the community views this essay may be gained by consulting the history and talk pages, and checking what links here.

Collapsed (effectively almost blanked) material that is offensive to Drama Kweens

This page in a nutshell: Below is an example of why you do not want Wikipedia to honor subjects' demands for made-up idiolect pronouns, or wacky stage names, or trademark stylizations, or honorific titles – even if some people in the real world use them.

We can record what reliable sources tell us about the subject's own usage (and some sources' usage about that subject), but we do not adopt it, in Wikipedia's own voice.

It, SMcCandlish, hereby declares Its personal pronoun to be It, beginning with this sentence. It has self-actualized as a post-biological explicate manifestation of the Multiverse's implicate reality, made of the stuff of stars.

Always capitalize It, to distinguish from other uses of the word it.
When spoken aloud, "It" must be enunciated with stress and length, so that the capital letter can be intuited.
The form "It" is used no matter what the construction, as illustrated below (with examples of special exceptions).
Capitalize Itself and similar compounds, in reference to It.
What do you think? → What does It think?
What did he say? → What did It say?
His shirt doesn't fit him well. → Its shirt doesn't fit It well.
We are going to the store. → It and I are going to the store. (It is unique and is not a part of anything.)
This food is all for us. → This food is all for It and me.
This food is all ours. → This food is all Its and mine.
What do you all/you lot want? → What do you all/you lot and It want?
He's pissing me off. → It's pissing me off.
When It is Itself using the first person: I want some chocolate → It wants some chocolate. (It is beyond the desperate loneliness of the "royal we", or the me of ego.)
In the unusual case of pluralization, e.g. when imagining multiple Its, then They/Their (capitalized) is required.
When discussed in the same breath with another actual entity that identifies as It, use It and It.
Capitalize any use of Who, Whom, Whose, Which, or That in direct reference to It.
The pronoun to use in reference to It before It came out as It, is It-that-was.
In a self- construction that refers to It, use Itself-, as in: It is self-actualizing → It is Itself-actualizing.

Outside of English, replace It with the equivalent word in the language in question.

If that is a gendered language, It is referred to with neuter gender when available.
If neuter is not available, alternate between masculine and feminine; use a similar approach for a strongly gendered language that has no separate word for It.
If the language (or font) does not have an upper-/lower-case distinction, then the first letter of It or equivalent must be stressed some other way, such as boldface, or royal purple.

It is not a person. When referred to in a generically descriptive way, It is the Entity. This must be separated out from constructions that would otherwise include It:

All the people who came to my party were fun. → All the people and the Entity who came to my party were fun.

(Except at the beginning of a sentence, the in front of Entity is not capitalized; that would just be ungrammatical.)

In long form, It may formally be referred to as "Its Ineffable Wonder, the Alien Space-God It, Pope-Emperor of ChaOrder".

Those who are not among Its personal circle should refer to It, in third person, as "It (feel the frightful serenity)", or "It (FFS)" in short form. Leaving out this theologically significant honorific is deeply disrespectful.

Update: Beginning 1 January 2025, Its designation changes from "It" to the symbolic representation ꧁꧂, pronounced "the Entity Who Until Recently Was Known as It". Please ensure that your Unicode support is sufficient by that date.

All of the above is beyond a mere preference; it also describes a religious conviction, and a position of spiritual leadership, as well as registered trademarks – it is formally official. If the enumerated preferences are not respected per MOS:IDENTITY and WP:ABOUTSELF policy, even on talk pages, this will be a WP:BLP violation, since that policy applies to all content, not just biographical article material. This will also constitute WP:Incivility, and may be interpreted as a WP:Personal attack and WP:Harassment if this recurs.

This user is allowed on Wikipedia because It is considered humorous.
Neither It nor Its comments should be taken even remotely seriously.

Notice

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Wow, ten years and your block log is still clean. Congratulations! wbm1058 (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, wbm1058! You seem surprised. Now, I am too !>) Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 20:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Please don't comment out Template:Requested move/dated

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

because my bot isn't smart enough to notice that. RMCD bot stupidly thought that template was still being transcluded. It took me over two months to notice that my bot was reporting an odd message on its console:

"Centrally-hosted discussion on Talk:2018 New York Attorney General election."

Of course, on checking that page I immediately saw that this was a spurious message as this was just a normal, not a centrally-hosted discussion, which appeared to have been closed in late December. After spending maybe 30 minutes on a wild goose chase looking for what recent code or template change I made recently triggered this unexpected side effect, I looked at the wikitext source of Talk:2018 New York Attorney General election and only then I immediately saw the problem. This edit fixed it, and shortly after I made that edit the bot removed the stale notice from the article.

Just like Farmers Insurance's university professor, I know a thing or two because I've seen a thing or two. So next time this happens, I'll know enough to look out for it. Too much trouble to try to code a patch to make my bot as smart as me. Low priority because it's such a rare "accident".

Since you've volunteered to fix malformed requested moves, which I appreciate, I'll add you to my "team of assistants" who do this when I'm busy working on other stuff besides monitoring RM, and point you to this guidance I gave to another one of my assistants. Thanks for helping out at RM. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

To editor Wbm1058: that was interesting, and on Christmas Eve, too. Not sure why I did that, probably figured to go back and delete the commented template at some point, but then I forgot to. And yes, I do frequently check for malformed RMs and try to fix if I can. It's usually something easy. Sorry for causing you unnecessary legwork, and thank you for the helpful information! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 21:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Ready bride

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm ready bride of christ Christysgotit (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

To editor Christysgotit: happy for you! Is there anything I can do for you? Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 15:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Paine Ellsworth,

News

The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
{{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #030, 17 Mar 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Previous issue:

Single-page portals: 4,704

Total portals: 5,705

This issue:

Single-page portals: 4,562

Total portals: 5,578

The collection of portals has shrunk

All Portals closed at WP:MfD during 2019

Grouped Nominations total 127 Portals:

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/US County Portals Deleted 64 portals
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Districts of India Portals Deleted 30 Portals
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portals for Portland, Oregon neighborhoods Deleted 23 Portals
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Allen Park, Michigan Deleted 6 Portals
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cryptocurrency Deleted 2 Portals
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:North Pole Deleted 2 Portals

Individual Nominations:

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Circles Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Fruits Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:E (mathematical constant) Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Burger King Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cotingas Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in Canada Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Agoura Hills, California Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Urinary system Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:You Am I Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cannabis (2nd nomination) Reverted to non-Automated version
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Intermodal containers Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adventure travel Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adam Ant Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Benito Juárez, Mexico City Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Spaghetti Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Wikiatlas Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Greek alphabet Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Accounting Deleted G7
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lents, Portland, Oregon Deleted P2
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ankaran Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jiu-jitsu Deleted G8
Portal:University of Nebraska Speedy Deleted P1/A10 exactly the same as Portal:University of Nebraska–Lincoln also created by the TTH

Related WikiProject:

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals Demoted

(Attribution: Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Portal MfD Results)

WikiProject Quantum portals

This was a spin-off from WikiProject Portals, for the purpose of developing zero-page portals (portals generated on-the-screen at the push of a button, with no stored pages).

It has been merged back into WikiProject Portals. In the MfD the vote was "demote". See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals.

Hiatus on mass creation of Portals

At WP:VPR, mass creation of Portals using semi-automated tools has been put on hold until clearer community consensus is established.

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Hiatus on mass creation of Portals.

The Transhumanist banned from creating new portals for 3 months

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal 1: Interim Topic-Ban on New Portals.

To editor The Transhumanist: don't really know what to say. They really ganged up on you. Guess that happens to leaders sometimes. I see the good you've done, which greatly outweighs any few mistakes you might have made. Whatever they say or do, the fact remains that portalspace has been significantly improved largely due to your efforts. May the bird of paradise fly up all their noses! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 06:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Until next issue...

Keep on keepin' on. — The Transhumanist 03:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Getting a change through

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Paine! I'm very frustrated because I'm trying to do the right thing but I'm making no progress. Some random user unilaterally changes the name of the Sinhala language article and no-one bats an eyelid. Had it been discussed, it would have been rejected as "no consensus", the same as my request to change it back. I've shown plenty of evidence that "Sinhala" is overwhelmingly preferred but hasn't totally displaced Sinhalese, but it appears to me (as in this in entirely my opinion) that ignorant people who have already make up their minds are voting against it, so undoing an incorrect change is impossible. The last voter basically said "languages and people have to have the same name in English". This is demonstrably not true, but their vote to oppose counts anyway. The same goes for everyone else who voted without commenting or providing evidence for their opinions, e.g. "Sinhalese is clearly the preferred name" without sourcing their statement. How can I get a change request based on facts instead of opinions? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a repository of the truth? Also, how long do you recommend before trying again? Danielklein (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

To editor Danielklein: I understand your frustration, because most of us have been there at one time or another. There was some support for the Sinhala title, and I think the key is to closely study all the rationales, both support and oppose, and use that knowledge to strengthen your argument. I think the key to getting an RM granted after a previous RM has closed as no consensus is to have something new to offer, an argument that cannot be effectively rebutted. It takes time to build that to where you'll be confident of acceptance, and that's why the guide indicates "the longer the better". The longer you take to build and strengthen your arguments, the more likely your request will be successful. There is no specific recommendation in the guide; however, I like to tell people to wait at least three months following a no-consensus outcome. On the other hand, if you can be confident of your request rationale sooner than that, like 8 or 10 weeks, then I'd say go for it! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 10:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that! This was my second attempt. The first was at Sinhalese script (which as I've pointed out has a much longer history of being stable at "Sinhala alphabet/script"). Someone told me a long time ago "Don't argue with idiots. They'll beat you with experience every time!" That is what seems to be happening here. I put forth rational arguments based on verifiable evidence, and someone else comes along and adds untrue evidence, which then gets taken at face value. I then have to debunk these irrelevant points. I watched an interesting TED talk last night about Brexit and the speaker made the interesting point that in today's political climate, lies are just as credible as evidence based truth.

I actually invited those people who'd voted against the name change to participate in the debate, but none of them did! Only one naysayer from the reopened request was willing to engage. I'd prefer not to go through another round of voting. The Wikipedia guidelines actually recommend against move requests for this very reason: they tend to be divisive rather than garner consent. I think I'll try sticking with the debate (which has already got very messy) and then raise a request for a technical move since it can't be moved by a regular user (as far as I'm aware). Danielklein (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I've been off Wikipedia for about a week, so I've only just seen your decision to rename the pages back to the "Sinhala" versions. Thank you! I'd hoped for a consensus rather than a policy reason for moving them back, but it's still a step in the right direction! Can these pages now be move-protected to stop single users from renaming them without discussion? I think we'll see further name-wars in the future if the pages aren't protected. Danielklein (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Remember that the "policy reason" actually is consensus-based, because it was a community consensus that decided what to do after a no-consensus RM decision. You can make a case for move protection at this page. Best to you, DK! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 05:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

From the editors: Getting serious about humor
News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive
In the media: Women's history month
Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding
Featured content: Out of this world
Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM
Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations
Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles
News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive
Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention
From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur 37
Op-Ed: Pro and Con: Has gun violence been improperly excluded from gun articles?
In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch
Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride
Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 15:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Commented

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-03-31/From the editors

Article move

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Paine Ellsworth. This article [1] was suddenly moved without any form for discussion, could you please revert it back to its original name? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

To editors HistoryofIran and Aryzad:

Done – since a rename to "Karenvand dynasty" can now be considered controversial, if you still want to move the article, then please follow the instructions at WP:RM. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 20:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Chairman

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Paine,

At the Chairman MRV you wrote: "It appears that no amount of further discussion would have resulted in any general agreement..."

Are you aware that 2/3rds supported a title other than the current title (Chairman) in the primary survey, and another 2/3rds preferred Chairperson over Chairman in the secondary survey, and the latest participations were all moving it even more in that direction? How much agreement does there have to be to result in "any general agreement"? There seems to be much more agreement in that RM discussion than I've seen in many other RMs in which consensus was found. So I was hoping you'd reconsider your assessment of that close, or at least explain it further. Thanks! --В²C ☎ 19:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

To editor В²C: hi, and thank you for coming – yes, this is one of the more interesting reviews, and the RM was a very close call. With so many involved in the RM who had strong args, it could have gone either way. Exceedingly controversial, after two relists, I may have closed it the same way, or I may have let it go on a few more days. The closer was within the instructions guide, so I have to stand by my endorsement. Further attempts to rename the page can take place in a few months with, hopefully, stronger arguments. It'll probably happen, tho' it will take some time. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 03:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Template include size exceeded

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Was there a recent change that caused this to start happening in one of my sandboxes, and also on my work page? Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 03:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Template include size exceeded

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and notes: An Action Packed April

In the media: Is Wikipedia just another social media site?

Discussion report: English Wikipedia community's conclusions on talk pages

Featured content: Anguish, accolades, animals, and art

Arbitration report: An Active Arbitration Committee

Traffic report: Mötley Crüe, Notre-Dame, a black hole, and Bonnie and Clyde

Technology report: A new special page, and other news

Gallery: Notre-Dame de Paris burns

News from the WMF: Can machine learning uncover Wikipedia’s missing “citation needed” tags?

Recent research: Female scholars underrepresented; whitepaper on Wikidata and libraries; undo patterns reveal editor hierarchy

From the archives: Portals revisited

Humour: Jimbo and Larry walk into a bar ...

Opinion: The gaps in our knowledge of our gaps

Interview: Katherine Maher marks 3 years as executive director

Community view: 2019 Wikimedia Summit gathers movement affiliate representatives to discuss movement strategy

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #031, 01 May 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Back to the drawing board

Implementation of the new portal design has been culled back almost completely, and the cull is still ongoing. The cull has also affected portals that existed before the development of the automated design.

Some of the reasons for the purge are:

Portals receive insufficient traffic, making it a waste of editor resources to maintain them, especially for narrow-scope or "micro" portals
The default {{bpsp}} portals are redundant with the corresponding articles, being based primarily on the corresponding navigation footer displayed on each of those articles, and therefore not worth separate pages to do so
They were mass created

Most of the deletions have been made without prejudice to recreation of curated portals, so that approval does not need to be sought at Deletion Review in those cases.

In addition to new portals being deleted, most of the portals that were converted to an automated design have been reverted.

Which puts us back to portals with manually selected content, that need to be maintained by hand, for the most part, for the time being, and back facing some of the same problems we had when we were at this crossroads before:

Manually maintained portals are not scalable (they are labor intensive, and there aren't very many editors available to maintain them)
The builders/maintainers tend to eventually abandon them
Untended handcrafted portals go stale and fall into disrepair over time

These and other concepts require further discussion. See you at WT:POG.

However, after the purge/reversion is completed, some of the single-page portals might be left, due to having acceptable characteristics (their design varied some). If so, then those could possibly be used as a model to convert and/or build more, after the discussions on portal creation and design guidelines have reached a community consensus on what is and is not acceptable for a portal.

See you at WT:POG.

Curation

A major theme in the deletion discussions was the need for portals to be curated, that is, each one having a dedicated maintainer.

There are currently around 100 curated portals. Based on the predominant reasoning at MfD, it seems likely that all the other portals may be subject to deletion.

See you at WT:POG.

Traffic

An observation and argument that arose again and again during the WP:ENDPORTALS RfC and the ongoing deletion drive of {{bpsp}} default portals, was that portals simply do not get much traffic. Typically, they get a tiny fraction of what the corresponding like-titled articles get.

And while this isn't generally considered a good rationale for creation or deletion of articles, portals are not articles, and portal critics insist that traffic is a key factor in the utility of portals.

The implication is that portals won't be seen much, so wouldn't it be better to develop pages that are?

And since such development isn't limited to editing, almost anything is possible. If we can't bring readers to portals, we could bring portal features, or even better features, to the readers (i.e., to articles)...

Some potential future directions of development

Quantum portals?

An approach that has received some brainstorming is "quantum portals", meaning portals generated on-the-fly and presented directly on the view screen without any saved portal pages. This could be done by script or as a MediaWiki program feature, but would initially be done by script. The main benefits of this is that it would be opt-in (only those who wanted it would install it), and the resultant generated pages wouldn't be saved, so that there wouldn't be anything to maintain except the script itself.

Non-portal integrated components

Another approach would be to focus on implementing specific features independently, and provide them somewhere highly visible in a non-portal presentation context (that is, on a page that wasn't a portal that has lots of traffic, i.e., articles). Such as inserted directly into an article's HTML, as a pop-up there, or as a temporary page. There are scripts that use these approaches (providing unrelated features), and so these approaches have been proven to be feasible.

What kind of features could this be done with?

The various components of the automated portal design are transcluded excerpts, news, did you know, image slideshows, excerpt slideshows, and so on.

Some of the features, such as navigation footers and links to sister projects are already included on article pages. And some already have interface counterparts (such as image slideshows). Some of the rest may be able to be integrated directly via script, but may need further development before they are perfected. Fortunately, scripts are used on an opt-in basis, and therefore wouldn't affect readers-in-general and editors-at-large during the development process (except for those who wanted to be beta testers and installed the scripts).

The development of such scripts falls under the scope of the Javascript-WikiProject/Userscript-department, and will likely be listed on Wikipedia:User scripts/List when completed enough for beta-testing. Be sure to watchlist that page.

Where would that leave curated portals?

Being curated. At least for the time being.

New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. For example, the pop-up feature of MediaWiki provides much the same functionality as excerpts in portals already, and there is also a slideshow feature to view all the images on the current page (just click on any image, and that activates the slideshow). Future features could also overlap portal features, until there is nothing that portals provide that isn't provided elsewhere or as part of Wikipedia's interface.

But, that may be a ways off. Perhaps months or years. It depends on how rapidly programmers develop them.

Keep on keepin' on

The features of Wikipedia and its articles will continue to evolve, even if Portals go by the wayside. Most, if not all of portals' functionality, or functions very similar, will likely be made available in some form or other.

And who knows what else?

No worries.

Until next issue... — The Transhumanist 00:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Template doc subpages

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. Do templates like {{Lexicology}} or {{Lexicography}} really need to have their documentation be on a separate subpage? My impression is that separate subpages are needed for protected templates (to keep the documentation editable) or for templates with intricate syntax (so that editors don't accidentally mess them up while fiddling with the doc). Templates like these, on the other hand, aren't likely to ever get protected, and they're pretty straightforward navboxes that it's difficult to imagine anyone messing up, nevermind the low likelihood of anyone needing to edit the documentation. Don't the disadvantages of having separate doc subpages, like the danger of getting left behind after a move or the lower number of watchers leading to higher risk of vandalism remaining undetected, start outweighing any pros? – Uanfala (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Uanfala! Been making /doc pages for many years, mainly because of the last paragraph in this section of the how-to guide. The less text on a template (even when noincluded), the faster the template renders and the less server strain. So I don't discriminate for any reason. Any template that has no separate /doc page gets one when I find it. Best to you! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 20:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The relevant technical parameter appears to be the post-expand include size, which I've never seen articles get near to, and outside of articles have only seen on extremely backlogged main XfD pages transcluding a large number of daily logs. Also, this last paragraph links to a village pump post from 2006 that seems to recommend using separate subpages when the documentation is large or frequently changed. – Uanfala (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

To editor Uanfala: yes, that's always been Tim Starling's recommendation; however, the Foundation recognizes that any and every decrease in the pre-expand size will benefit the server load, especially when there are many of us who've been creating /doc subpages for many, many years. Net benefit/no downside. Or do you see a downside that I've missed? Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 21:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Downsides? To the two I've pointed out above, I can add one more off the top of my head: it makes editing a bit more difficult to figure out for newbies. On another note, you must have seen Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance? Anyway, I've asked about the technical side of this question at the village pump. – Uanfala (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

To editor Uanfala: just FYI as regards the IP you cited, yes, it is true for the vast majority of users; however, there is at least one group that has to be particularly careful, and that is the group of template editors. I am only aware with certainty of one time that I inadvertently shut Wikipedia down for several minutes while the server sorted out my error. And I was well-throttled for that. There have been other times when I suspected that a shutdown was caused by something I had done, but I had no way of being sure. Such instances have made me a very careful camper, especially where heavily transcluded templates are concerned. So it's not impossible, only rare and virtually impossible for most users and therefore pretty much nothing for them to be concerned about. Thanks in advance for your discretion, and Best to You! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 19:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Diabetes (disambiguation) for deletion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Diabetes (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diabetes (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JFW | T@lk 11:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Move on Meaningful vote

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I wonder why you close the RM as moved? As we can see there are numerous users oppose to it. --B dash (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, B dash, and thank you very much for coming to my talk page. Saw enough support and a definite consensus to rename, just no agreement as to what the new title should be. In a case like that the closing instructions are clear, as noted in my closing statement. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 21:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I can see that some users raised another name in this RM. Perhaps this may be relist once more, or should be closed as no consensus. --B dash (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Move review for Parliamentary votes on Brexit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has asked for a Move review of Parliamentary votes on Brexit. 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. B dash (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Paine Ellsworth,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News

Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Discussions of interest

A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Why leave a stale copy of a move request notice?

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Re:[2] I see that you are leaving a copy of the notice box for a closed move request, but I still fail to understand your motivation. Why attract the eyes of readers on a closed discussion, which is already marked in blue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFG (talk • contribs) 14:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi JFG, my tests in the /old sandbox were to fix the template. I started using it awhile back because that is what it's designed for, to be substituted while closing a move request and before making any decided upon page move. The problem was that some of the metas in the template weren't being substituted correctly, so I fixed that and continued to use it. My motivation is just that I read the closing instructions for the umteen millionth time and it "clicked" that using the /old template was also an option. I liked it and started using it. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 14:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

To editor JFG: should add that my main likage for the /old template are the move-log links at the lower right of the mbox. That often saves having to install either the {{Old move}} or the {{Old moves}} template near the top of the talk page. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 00:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand. The links to logs are useful indeed. Perhaps the template would be even more useful if it displayed the outcome of the move. Can this be automated? — JFG ^talk 06:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure, probably would be simple for a "not moved" or for a "moved" decision that involves a single page; however, multiple requests, especially those that result in some pages moved and others not, might get complicated. Since the result is found in the closer's comment, I've put a note to that effect in the template's visible text. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 06:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

From the editors: Picture that

News and notes: Wikimania and trustee elections

In the media: Politics, lawsuits and baseball

Discussion report: Admin abuse leads to mass-desysop proposal on Azerbaijani Wikipedia

Arbitration report: ArbCom forges ahead

Traffic report: Dark marvels, thrones, a vile serial killer biopic, that's entertainment!

Technology report: Lots of Bots

News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation petitions the European Court of Human Rights to lift the block of Wikipedia in Turkey

Recent research: Wikipedia more useful than academic journals, but is it stealing the news?

Essay: Paid editing

From the archives: FORUM:Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikilawyering

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, this is just to make it clear that I do not see your own involvement in the Boeing 737 MAX/Max spat as wikilawyering. The essay does say that "A common mistake of misguided advocacy is when editors appoint themselves mediators and proceed with judging the sides by telling others whether they are right or wrong", which you might be seen to have fallen for, but I do not see that as deliberate. I should also make it clear that I have no opinion on which side has the better case in the way that you do. Mine is only that neither case is hopeless. However the same editor or bunch of editors launching the latest review after being put down four times already does smack to me of deliberately looking to play the system and I stand by my perjorative assessment of their persistence in the face of repeated failure to establish consensus. They are the ones who are becoming disruptive, that is the only reason I felt pushed to make any comment. I trust that we can agree to differ and to move on without further disrupting the ongoing review. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Steelpillow, for coming to my talk page! At MRV we are required mainly to assess the close itself, as you know. Sometimes in order to do that we have to assess the validity of the args on both sides. In this case, most of the support args are policy- and guideline-based, while nearly all of the oppose args are not. The editor who requested the page moves and the MRV is within what community consensus has evaluated as their right to try and garner consensus. I have no problem with agreeing to disagree. Your argument at MRV is well-put, well-said; however, it is also completely wrong, as if you didn't even read the RM discussion. Please do so and try again. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 16:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your revert

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I did post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect#R to anchor and R to section before changing it and saw no response in 3 days so went ahead and changed it. I do not agree with your assessment that anchor redirects are unprintworhty by default. Module:Episode list uses by default anchor redirects and their episode names are indeed worthy. This is the same exact situation as R to section and R to list. If any computer generated medadata uses this, then those should change to use a different template, not the other way around. If you insist on preventing this change (as we both know that no one but us will ever respond to a discussion there), let me know and I'll just create a fork template. --Gonnym (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, it was not my assessment but that of the 1.0 team long ago. Please see my response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect. And note that I have a lot of respect for you and your contributions. The revert was just to correct a major removal of thousands of anchor redirects from Category:Unprintworthy redirects. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 17:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Close notes – 737 Max

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

You've got mail!
—Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 19:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

There are many faulty assumptions repeated in the move discussions. I took the time to write a note to each argument that I debate. See the " Note:" lines at User:Aron_Manning/737_Max_RM. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 05:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

You have great experience in move requests. What do you suggest after a 1-year-old user closed the review with the same error - a vote count -, then tried to fix their mistake by rewriting the close summary with a complete nonsense?
See the discussion at their talk page. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 16:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Aron M🍂, for bringing this to my talk page. I've overturned the MRV closure and added a response to you there. Thanks again and best to you! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 17:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

To editor Paine Ellsworth: Hello again! I've reworded the summary to focus on the close, as required by WP:MRV. Feel free to review: User:Aron_Manning/737_Max_RM#Requested_move_25_May_2019
There are many ambiguous arguments in the RM, therefore the categorization is also ambiguous. Opposers can argue the evaluation of individual arguments, if they disagree, on the associated talk page. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 19:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi can you move page

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi its been more than a week now can you please move the page Tejasswi Prakash Wayangankar to Tejasswi Prakash as it was nominated. Some user moved it to a wrong title when it was not nominated for that name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.192.225 (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, after researching, I have granted the request and renamed the article. Thank you for coming to my talk page! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 19:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

another move

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi User: Paine Ellsworth could you please move Lies of the Heart to Doli Armaano Ki it’s been a week now and this is the common name u can search it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.192.139 (talk) 08:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 15:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Celebrity Big Brother (British series 5) racism controversy

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Paine, thanks for closing the above move request. I'm curious as to why you chose to move to the above title, though. Per WP:DAB we should only have a disambiguator in place if there is something to disambiguate. In this case, Celebrity Big Brother racism controversy already redirects to that page, is the only such title on Wikpiedia, and avoids any disambiguation. Per our policies, and the point I made in the RM, it should have been moved to the base name, shouldn't it? Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Puzzled over that for a long time. Since the nom didn't change the target title for that request, and since the other supporter came along after you placed your rationale, I finally decided to go with the local consensus and avoid the appearance of a supervote. Feel free to amend as you see fit. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 12:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the response. I've decided to be bold and ignore all rules, and all that sort of thing, and moved the article. Let's see what happens. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

See? that's why you get the big bucks!>) Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 13:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

he he, not really. I'm just as knowledgeable/clueless (delete as appropriate) as the next Wikipedian... I just have a nice shiny hat to go with it! Thanks, and I hope you have a good weekend — Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Pleasure! Paine (and you also)

Move a page

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi just wanted to tell its been more than a week so can you look into moving Oviya to Oviya Helen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.118.213 (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, 86+, for coming to my talk page! That one was relisted on the 22nd, perhaps to generate discussion. You might try asking the editor who relisted it? Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 20:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your Eurobond / Eurobonds page moves

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Paine Ellsworth,

Can I respectfully request that either you revert your closure of the RM at Eurobond and wait for more input, or else allow immediate follow-up moves without discussion? Neither of the two disambiguators you picked were proposed during the discussion or mentioned as options. It's too late now, but had you suggested them as a normal voter, I would have hard opposed both of these:

"international" is a terrible disambiguator because both types of Eurobond are international Eurobonds, so it's a disambiguator that fails to disambiguate.
"eurozone" is a suboptimal disambiguator because Eurobonds of the first type certainly include the Eurozone as well.

As a result, both titles are now ambiguous. I thought that only Eurobonds should be moved, but if both absolutely must be moved:

Eurobond should go to Eurobond (external bond).
Eurobonds should go to Eurobonds (proposed Eurozone bonds).

Pinging original requestor User:King of Hearts and the other voter User:Amakuru for visibility. (Also, as a more minor note, the "bond denominated in another currency" meaning of Eurobond is like 1000x times more relevant than the other one, so should be first on the disambiguation page - but I can go change that now.) SnowFire (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

To editor SnowFire: I wondered about the "international" issue, because the eurozone article does not use that term to describe those bonds, but only to describe the euro itself as an "international reserve currency". Apologies, because there seems to be no reason to expect more input, since the last post to that discussion was yours on 5 June, 18 days prior to closure. I've no problem with follow-up moves as long as they are discussed first, as I was required to note in my closing statement by the closing instructions. So suggest you open a new RM per those instructions. Thank you for coming to my talk page! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 22:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that "international" as a disambiguator simply makes no sense. Note that per WP:PLURAL, no page should be at "Eurobonds" or a qualified version thereof. I feel like Eurobond (eurozone) is OK because the eurozone is a defining characteristic of this type of Eurobond only; while it is possible for external bonds to be issued in euros and/or by eurozone countries, they have nothing inherently to do with the eurozone. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

With respect, Paine Ellsworth, "international" is sufficiently bad enough that I was asking for "permission" to move it on the spot. Since this title was never proposed and never officially supported by anyone, I think the consensus behind keeping it is exceedingly weak, so I've gone ahead and moved it. Maybe I'll poke at the article later for a future RM on a 2DABS argument if it can be spruced up and be shown to be the primary topic it is.

For "eurozone", while this is somewhat better since the proposed financial instrument was closely tied to the Eurozone, the problem is that Eurobonds (in the sense of externally denominated bonds) - as the name suggests - originally became popular in the proto-Eurozone of the European Community, and were originally largely traded out of London. So it's still not very WP:PRECISE. SnowFire (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

SnowFire, I'm just a closer so in this case I have to remain objective. That means that while I see your page move to Eurobond (external bond) as Bold and Assertive, I am not the one to be judgemental about your actions. I guess we'll see how it goes. Again, it's a pleasure to discuss it with you! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 14:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Paine Ellsworth,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Discussion report: A constitutional crisis hits English Wikipedia

News and notes: Mysterious ban, admin resignations, Wikimedia Thailand rising

In the media: The disinformation age

On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

Traffic report: Juneteenth, Beauty Revealed, and more nuclear disasters

Technology report: Actors and Bots

Gallery: Unlike the North Face, Wiki Loves Earth

Special report: Did Fram harass other editors?

Recent research: What do editors do after being blocked?; the top mathematicians, universities and cancers according to Wikipedia

From the archives: Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching

Opinion: Why the Terms of Use change didn't curtail undisclosed paid editing—and what might

In focus: WikiJournals: A sister project proposal

Community view: A CEO biography, paid for with taxes

Op-Ed: 2019 Wikimedia Affiliate Selected Board Seats Election Results

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Move wasn't completed

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, in your fix here you removed most of the articles I tagged from the RM and they weren't moved as a result. Could you please move the rest of the set? --Gonnym (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I see where Amakuru moved those back, for example here and here, after I removed those pages to fix your malformed request and then notified you on your talk page. I'll go ahead and move them back. Apologies for the mix up, and thank you for notifying me! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 09:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! --Gonnym (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Pleasure! Paine

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.