User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Penny for your thoughts on userspace template #Rs

Re these 2 RfDs.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tom, I've tagged those two with appropriate rcats. Amory makes a good point or two. Since userspace pages are usually left alone unless the specific user okays the edits/deletions, the tool should probably be set to exclude such redirects. And I can't help wondering if those users are okay with their subpages being discussed at RfD? I don't think I would be okay with one of my subpage redirects (and there are several) being taken to discussion. Just my take, as you asked.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  17:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Move request

I'd like to bring your attention to Talk:Trans-Canada Highway#Requested move 11 March 2018. Your grounds for moving Jungang Line to Jungang line is sufficient reason to move Trans-Canada Highway to Trans-Canada highway, that MOS on capitalisation is more important than the fact that "Trans-Canada Highway" is a proper name. 2Q (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

You may be correct, 2Q. So far, I've seen these decapitalization RMs apply to lines and stations in the US, Korea, Japan and so on. Not sure about Highway→highway. Let's wait and see.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  19:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Eventually, if this move happens, then Sunset Boulevard should be moved to Sunset boulevard, Picadilly Circus to Picadilly circus, etc. For full disclosure, I oppose this completely, because the rules of English regarding proper names should trump any arbitrary style decisions we make here - all parts of a proper name are to be capitalised, and "Highway" is part of the proper name "Trans-Canada Highway", and "Line" is part of the proper name "Jungang Line", etc. These absolutely should *not* be decapitalised... but if we decapitalise one, on some random criterion, then I'll argue that *all* should be decapitalised, for consistency's sake. 2Q (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Something new - I've just been made aware that Move review is a thing... I think I'm going to open one (unless you're willing to un-close and undo the move), because I don't believe that the discussion should have been closed yet in favour of a move - at best there is no consensus yet... which generally means things should stay where they are until consensus to move away from the long-standing title happens... 2Q (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, MR is an option, and remember... the only subject of move review is whether or not it was an acceptable close. It's not a place to rehash the RM discussion. Focus must be on the close itself.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  20:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I do think the close was too soon - the discussion was still taking place, there was no consensus made yet, etc. 2Q (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I saw that discussion had not stalled; however, I did not see it going anywhere either. The debate had been relisted twice, which should be uncommon as such debates should only last 7 days, at the most 14 days after one relisting. It's not "wrong" to relist twice, and I've even seen and done three relistings at rare times. This debate had the strength of guideline, naming convention and policy – those equal a powerful community consensus. Also, the close itself was guided by Wikipedia:Requested moves#Relisting, which states that after relisting, an RM debate can be closed at any time. Best to you and yours!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  21:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The question that nobody has yet answered for me is what makes the proper name of a named railway line (or highway, or whatever) different from a name like "Sunset Boulevard". Why does "guideline, naming convention and policy" apply to one, seemingly at random, and not to the other? 2Q (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The answer comes from numerous recent move requests along this same vein that resulted in renames of various railway line and station articles. Arguments have cited the guides mentioned above along with strong arguments that "line" and "station" are not "proper nouns" when qualifying any particular railway line nor railway station, not in the English language. To determine this, move requests have used reliable sources to support decapitalizations. Your recently opened request may rely on whether the "Highway" in "Trans-Canada Highway" is upper-cased in reliable sources. That's usually the first place to look – how are qualifiers like "street", "highway", "line", "station", etc., cased, upper- or lower-, in reliable sources.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  04:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

House of the Dead

Agree with the close.

But disagree with the policy! If you have time (it's longish) User:Andrewa/Let us abolish the whole concept of primary topic is now worth a read IMO, and still developing. Comments on its talk page more than welcome of course. Andrewa (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Andrewa – strange the way these things tilt now and again. Thank you for your essay and your pointer to it!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  04:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Romaine Brooks

There are several errors in this entry. First my book on Romaine Brooks: A life (University of Wisconsin 2016) cited in the footnotes several times but missing from the bibliography. Secondly: Romaine is not buried with Romaine. She is actually buried in the family plot in Nice. RomaineB (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

To editor RomaineB: welcome to Wikipedia! Not sure how I can help with this. The only reason I can see that Romaine Brooks: A Life is used only in the footnotes is the different way that it was included. Two ways to include references are both used, and one way requires a list with details. The way this book is included in the footnotes (with details) does not require inclusion in the references list. As for her interment, your claim would require reliable sourcing, especially since one source I've seen tells us she is interred in Paris.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  11:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for the History section in Children in the military. And your other good work in these areas. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Pleasure! Paine  

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018

• Op-ed: Death knell for The Signpost?

• News and notes: Wiki Conference roundup and new appointments.

• Arbitration report: Ironing out issues in infoboxes; not sure yet about New Jersey; and an administrator who probably wasn't uncivil to a sockpuppet.

• In the media: The media on Wikipedia's workings: the good and not-so-good

• Traffic report: Real sports, real women and an imaginary country: what's on top for Wikipedia readers

• Featured content: Animals, Ships, and Songs

• Technology report: Timeless skin review by Force Radical.

• Special report: ACTRIAL wrap-up.

• Humour: WikiWorld Reruns

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Paine Ellsworth, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

• Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

• While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

• The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Death knight (Dungeons & Dragons)

How do the three opposes have stronger arguments than the six supports? One of them makes no sense at all and another was treating RM like AfD. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

To editor Xezbeth: hello – Supports 2 and 3 (nom being #1 support) were pretty much nothing rationales, so numerically at best there was a 4:3 support/oppose ratio. The first oppose seemed strong, and the other supports just seemed to attempt to counter the second oppose, which I also thought was strong. As strong as I thought they were, they were of course not strong enough to warrant a consensus to "not move"; however, in my opinion there was a fairly clear overall lack of consensus in the debate. How do you read it?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Yokohama FC

Hi Paine, do you know the reasons behind this edit? I am not sure I understand what is happening here. There are several of these requests at WP:RM right now, and I agree that the changes appear to be uncontroversial at first glance, but since there are a lot of transfusions of these and the redirects were changed from protected templates to other templates with similar names, I'm not sure quite what's going on and was unwilling to put them through myself. Can you explain it to me? Also pinging User:Gonta-Kun. Dekimasuよ! 19:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Dekimasu – at the time Gonta-Kun made that edit, it was to the redirect titled Template:Yokohama FC (and I would assume that Gonta-Kun thought it to be a better target). That page and it's history were then moved to my Draft:Move/ page, so I could move the contents and history of then Template:Yokohama F.C. to that title. My Draft:Move/ page was then moved back to the Template:Yokohama F.C. page as a broken redirect, which I fixed, and all without leaving redirects per the round-robin method. The technical and uncontroversial aspect of this particular page move falls due to the fact that the article for that template is titled Yokohama FC, a fairly stable title since 2016 following a bit of back and forth leading up to that date. Haven't yet peered into the other requests you mention; however, I think they should each be adjudged on their own merits.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Right, all of these have something technical involved. I do understand the moves you performed, but I am really asking about whether you understand Template:Fb team Yokohama FC, the previous target that's protected. The edit seems to have bypassed the protection, but I haven't been able to determine the purpose of that template itself. The other requests all involve the same sort of bypass. Pinging User:Gonta-Kun again; Gonta-san, if you can reply in either English or Japanese, I'd appreciate it. Dekimasuよ! 17:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

To editor Dekimasu: the {{Fb team Yokohama FC}} template is used meta-like in the {{Japanese Club Football}} navbar, but it does seem to be a round-a-bout way to link to the Yokohama FC article. I also would like to hear from Gonta-Kun about this interesting template arrangement.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  19:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Physical exercise

Hi Paine

Please could I ask you to look again at your close of the Physical exercise RM? While on the face of it the votes were split, there was a body of early votes which I think misunderstood the RM, thinking it was a primary topic debate (it's not, because Exercise already redirects here). After the relist, I put in a support vote, citing WP:COMMONANME and WP:CONCISE, and since then there hasn't been a substantial argument offered in opposition (discounting the vacuous "this is an exercise in futility"). In particular, I'd ask you to look at RedSlash's well argued support !vote, and the agreements that followed that. It looks like a fairly clear consensus to move to me. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

No problemo, Amakuru, I've reopened the RM and asked an admin to do the final close.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  10:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata-redirect template added to numerous minor-planet redirects

I'm struggling to understand why the template {{Wikidata-redirect}} has been added to numerous minor-planet redirects, such as here, since the template's documentation was quite puzzling to me. Could you plz tell me the basic idea? Also, has {{Wikidata-redirect}} been applied consistently to all minor-planet redirects, or is there still a need for followup edits? Thx, Rfassbind – talk 15:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, that rcat is added to any redirect that appears as a "Wikidata item" in the left margin under "Tools". I've also added it to several redirects that were not Wikidata items, however, they were very close to their target's Wikidata page. In those cases, the Wikidata Q-number of the target must be used as a first parameter. There is much about it that I don't understand, too, which is why the documentation needs improvement. For the basic idea, the creators and originators should be sought, because for the most part, I just apply what the creators give me, usually without question. It's good that you question it, though, and I would be glad to know what you find. I don't know if this rcat has been consistently used on all mp redirects, yet I would suspect that there might be a few that still need it. I could be wrong about that.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  00:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Rogue (vagrant)

I'm not opposed to the general result of the recent move discussion, but I am mystified by the part about a "definite general agreement" to reject the proposed move. Of the comments dealing with the original proposal, I count one "oppose", one "support", and one "agnostic". That doesn't look very definite to me. Care to elaborate? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

You may be right. When I see several editors suggesting another name(s), I tend to count those rationales as in opposition to a page move as it has been proposed. Perhaps that's where we differ?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  05:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. It seems like a stretch to infer opposition where an editor has not commented on the specific proposal. Per the closing instructions, discussions like this one that have fractured into several possible titles should really result in "no consensus". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

You seem to require an editor to actually word their rationale to the effect, "I oppose a move to the requested title." On the other hand, when I see a rationale to the effect, "Support move to (another name)," I have always considered that to be an implied opposition to the requested title.

Usually when the outcome is "not moved", that is the end of it for at least a year or more. When you dig deeper into what I wrote, you will see that while I used the words "not moved", I also noted that there was "no consensus" to move to any other than the requested title. And I stated there is "no prejudice" to revisit the RM when the merge discussions have ended. So I do think that I was within the boundaries of the closing instructions. If anything, I was less strict and more discretionary than those instructions tell us to be. Your mileage may vary.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  04:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2018

• From the editors: The Signpost's presses roll again

• Signpost: Future directions for The Signpost

• News and notes: Photo of Kim Jong-un. Stephen Hawking death tops hits on many Wikipedias.

• In the media: The rise of Wikipedia as a disinformation mop

• In focus: Admin reports board under criticism

• Special report: ACTRIAL results adopted by landslide

• Opinion: Guideline for Organization Notability revised

• Op-ed: World War II Myth-making and Wikipedia

• Community view: It's time we look past Women in Red to counter systemic bias

• Discussion report: The future of portals

• Arbitration report: No new cases, and one motion on administrative misconduct

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Military History

• Blog: Why the world reads Wikipedia

• Humour: Our Favorite Places to Whine About Stuff

• Traffic report: A quiet place to wrestle with the articles of March

• Technology report: Coming soon: Books-to-PDF, interactive maps, rollback confirmation

• Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

• Gallery: A look at some famous and not as well-known border tripoints

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HUMOUR listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:HUMOUR. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:HUMOUR redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Thryduulf, for the heads-up!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

• From the editor: Another issue meets the deadline

• Op-ed: Has the wind gone out of the AdminShip's sails?

• Opinion: Integrating my many lives on Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Portals

• Discussion report: User rights, infoboxes, and more discussion on portals

• Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

• Arbitration report: Managing difficult topics

• News and notes: Lots of Wikimedia

• In the media: Wikipedia in Turkish politics; COI politics in Wikipedia; most cited work

• Traffic report: We love our superheroes

• Technology report: A trove of contributor and developer goodies

• Blog: Why I write about women on Wikipedia

• Recent research: Why people don't contribute to Wikipedia; using Wikipedia to teach statistics, technical writing, and controversial issues

• Humour: Play with your food

• Gallery: Wine not?

• From the archives: The Signpost scoops The Signpost

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello Paine Ellsworth, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

• Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

• A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

• There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

• Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

• Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
• The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   08:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

I'm back

Sorry for the random year-long disappearance. Illness+wiki-stress+other real life issues conspired against me. Is there any specific redirect/redir-cat/redir-template work you feel could specifically use a helping hand at the moment, or is it still pretty much 'well there's about a hundred-thousand redirects to be templated and categorized for every user doing any redir work so it doesn't really matter where you start, it'll be a decade before we're done anyway?' :P AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Believe me, AddWittyNameHere, I do understand about the things that can keep us offline, and it's good to see you back! Nothing extra special going on so yes, you've pretty much nailed where we are. Hope to see you in the trenches!  Painius  ^put'r there  08:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! It's good to be back, for that matter. :) And all right...business as usual, then. (I appear to be literally incapable of involving myself into anything maintenance/infrastructure/gnomish that's not either "couple hundred burst-edits across 1-2 days and we're done" or "eh...we've got what, less than a dozen folks doing this? Well, if we all knock out about 250 edits daily just on fixing this and absolutely nothing interferes, we might have it wrapped up by the end of this decade..." XD)

Merger discussion for EBU R128

An article that you have been involved in editing—EBU R128—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mr X ^☎️ 01:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

To editor Mr Xaero: thank you very much for letting me know!  Painius  ^put'r there  00:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Shinola Detroit

Greetings. Would you consider doing the histmerge suggested by AjaxSmack for edits up to 03:33, 11 March 2013? This was the genesis of the article currently at Shinola, which had to be recreated piecemeal starting in 2015. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I would love to be able to do that! However, a) I don't know how to merge page histories, and b) only admins can perform histmerges, and I'm not an admin. I have requested histmerges before, and you can do that at WP:HISTMERGE. There you will find an experienced admin to help you.  Painius  ^put'r there  21:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Paine Ellsworth, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

• As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
• Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
• Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:R to monotypic taxon subcategories

I saw that someone has added a few subcategories to {{R to monotypic taxon}} much like the already-working spider/plant/fungi categories. Unfortunately, they're not actually in use because the template wasn't updated. I figure either the template should be updated or the categories deleted, what would you say is best here? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

That and {{R from monotypic taxon}} both look like WIPs to me. I want to go ahead and add the functionalities; however, maybe we should consult Peter coxhead and Ahecht, who might shed some light on the situation before I by any chance muck things up?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  07:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense to ask them, yea. Agree that they're very in-progress-y. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but having empty subcats sit there just 'cause no one has edited the relevant templates seems a not-very-useful way to go about it to me. XD AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Nathan Larson (political candidate)

I disagree with your reading of consensus, but I suppose I have no recourse? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yngvadottir – there seems to almost always be recourse when editors disagree. For RMs, the recourse would be to go to the closer's talk page and give reasons for perhaps reopening and relisting the debate. Failing that, there is always MRV.

I have looked again at the debate, and I come to the same conclusion, because while the numerical consensus is just a bit rough, supporters' args were in my opinion just a bit stronger. If you were to objectively close the debate, how would you close it and what rationale would you give?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  20:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm biased of course, and often puzzled by closers' rationales, but I see multiple editors presenting reasoned objections to the move, including one who raises a NOTBURO rationale that merits consideration, and an unwarranted accusation of bias that I believe I at least responded to adequately. I see no consensus either way. I would at least have left it for an admin, but as I say, I'm biased. I had good reason not to create the article at "politician". Yngvadottir (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Another closer might have seen it that way and called "no consensus" – it was that close. And looking back, I have to ask myself if I would allow my decision to be influenced by the subject's unusual (for a politician) background? Are there examples where other people have been called politicians even though they haven't yet attained office? Are there other examples on Wikipedia where people are disambiguated as "political candidate" because they haven't yet attained office? and so on. It's good to discuss these things. Now is there anything you would like me to do?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  04:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Just a thought...

You may want to register the username in your signature in the event that someone hijacks and/or registers that name themselves. Best beat vandalism/impersonation at the pass. Steel1943 (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks, Steel man!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  20:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 June 2018

• From the editor: The Admin Ship is still barely afloat, while a Foundation project risks sinking

• Special report: NPR and AfC – The Marshall Plan: an engagement and a marriage?

• Op-ed: What do admins do?

• Opinion: Google isn't responsible for Wikipedia's mistakes

• News and notes: Money, milestones, and Wikimania

• In the media: Much wikilove from the Mayor of London, less from Paekākāriki or a certain candidate for U.S. Congress

• Discussion report: Deletion, page moves, and an update to the main page

• Featured content: New promotions

• Arbitration report: WWII, UK politics, and a user deCrat'ed

• Traffic report: Endgame

• Technology report: Improvements piled on more improvements

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Africa

• Blog: Wikipedia should be open for editors in Turkey

• Recent research: How censorship can backfire and conversations can go awry

• Humour: Television plot lines

• Wikipedia essays: This month's pick by The Signpost editors

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

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Parameter name

Hello Paine, I was looking at some rcats today, and noticed that among them we are using two different parameter names for the category. For example, {{R from former name}} uses |main category= whereas {{R from short name}} uses |all category=. Is there a reason for having the two parameters? If so, when is the one used as well as the other? Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi John, and thank you for asking – the two parameters each determine the namespace(s) in which the rcat may be used. If the parameter is |main category=, then the rcat can only be used in the main, article namespace, and should not be used in any other namespaces. If the parameter is |all category=, then the rcat can be used in any namespace. There is more on this at Template:Redirect template#Parameters. You'll remember that {{Redirect template}} is the meta template used in all the rcats.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  18:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Paine, I appreciate that clarification. I did look at the documentation for {{Redirect template}}; noticing the namespace segregation intended. The actual thrust of my concern was spawned by the Rcat's behavior associated with which category parameter was being used.

Notice at Special:ExpandTemplates how {{R from short name}} when transcluded as input and subsequently expanded results in the "preview" section showing the hidden "R"-category where tagged pages are grouped. Yet when {{R from former name}} is expanded, no hidden categorization is shown. And, more importantly, when the "results" section is examined, the coding shows that no categorization for the rcat is rendering at all (for the given circumstances). If nothing else, it represents opportunities for maintenance categorization that are being missed, IMHO.

Before endeavoring those improvements, please tell me where the {{Redirect template}} generates Category:Printworthy redirects and Category:Unprintworthy redirects? I can't parse their origin anywhere within the template's coding. Thank you again.--John Cline (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why the category doesn't show for {{R from former name}} and yet does show for {{R from short name}}. The printworthiness categories appear to be generated by the module now, toward the end of the module code.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Why...

... was this made? We (WikiProject University) have spent countless hours making sure that university navboxes are the colors of the school it's for. The color you chose was not even close to the school's colors providing false information. I'm just curious as to why. Corky 02:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

To editor Corky: my only defense is that I was thinking about accessibility issues and contrast. The dark green was hiding the icons in the below section. I have replaced that with the gold color found in the infobox:  . Is that acceptable?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  03:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but nope, the gold background and White font is not compliant... and green on gold isn't compliant either. Personally, I see no need for the icons, but that's just my opinion. The standard is to have one background and one border color for the template. Corky 03:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, the icons have been removed.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  04:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Help needed adding parameters to some high-profile templates!

The categories, Category:Redirects from sort names and Category:Redirects from ambiguous sort names are growing unwieldy. I plan to subdivide them in two ways for increased searchability, by creating a set of subcategories Category:Redirects from sort names, A, Category:Redirects from sort names, B, Category:Redirects from sort names, C, etc., and by creating a set of subcategories Category:Redirects from sort names by article title, A, Category:Redirects from sort names by article title, B, Category:Redirects from sort names by article title, C. Under this scheme, Adams, Chester (a redirect to the article Chester Adams) would fall into Category:Redirects from sort names, A and Category:Redirects from sort names by article title, C, and Johnson, Frank (a redirect to the disambiguation page Frank Johnson) would fall into Category:Redirects from ambiguous sort names, J and Category:Redirects from ambiguous sort names by article title, F. These would ideally be implemented with parameters at the respective templates, so that the first would be implemented by adding {{R from sort name||A|C}}, and the second would be implemented by adding {{R from ambiguous sort name||J|F}}. I can create the 104 new categories and assign a bot to sort the ~90,000 sort name redirects into these subcategories. Is this reasonable doable? bd2412 T 15:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

To editor ­bd2412: I think it is. Let me massage it a bit.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  23:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep an eye out for your further thoughts. bd2412 T 23:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

To editor ­bd2412: okay, I think we're there. Just need to know if you still want all the redirects to populate the subcategories and the parent categories Redirects from sort names and Redirects from ambiguous sort names? or do you want those parents to act as container categories and hold only the subcategories without redirects?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  04:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

To editor ­bd2412: 'nother question... I see that you've indicated 2nd and 3rd parameters in both rcats; however, the first rcat does not have a 1st parameter because all sort names are printable. You've made the ambiguous sort name rcat with optional printability by use of the 1st parameter. So is it better for you for both rcats to place the new params in the 2nd and 3rd positions?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  05:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Ideally, I would like to depopulate the parent categories as the subcats are populated. That way, it will be obvious when new sort name redirects are created without the parameters. As for the parameter numbers, if the printworthy parameter is not needed, it would be best to get rid of it. I made the template for ambiguous redirects by copying the original, including that parameter (I think - I would not have added it sua sponte). bd2412 T 14:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

To editor ­bd2412: okay, I've made the rcats populate only the two categories (each) and not the parent container cats when parameters are filled. Also, if an editor forgets and only fills one parameter, the correct category will be populated along with the parent category, so the other parameter will be caught and filled. I'll make the ambiguous-sort rcat populate Category:Printworthy redirects since as far as I know, dab pages are not excluded from printed versions of Wikipedia, and imo sort names should be printable whether or not they redirect to dab pages. The rcats have been modified and tested. So mon creatur, while you create the categories and supply the parameters, I'll work on the template documentations.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  17:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. I'm on the cat creation and population. bd2412 T 17:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. The supercategories are now completely diffused. Furthermore, along the way I found and fixed a variety of errors, including numerous redirects that were categorized as sortnames when they were merely alternative titles. All is well. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

To editor ­bd2412: yes, everytime I return to them I find some little thing that needs doing. Looks like everything's working as expected, so backpats all around!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  06:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence

Just to briefly reiterate what I wrote over at Template talk:R from Twitter username, thank you for your diligence in mulling over an issue, finding a rather obscure but nifty template to resolve it, and then applying it. And I'm really sorry you removed all those DEFAULTSORT keys by hand; you should have something beforehand, I could have done it in <10 minutes with AWB. Cheers for going the extra three miles! —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, now that I inspect more closely, it looks like you did use AWB for most of them, then switched to hand at some point. Might I ask why? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Compassionate727, for the barnstar! All but about fifty were done with AWB and didn't take long. Had to manually do all the ones that were still enabled and working redirects for some reason. AWB would only handle correctly the ones that had been tagged with the deletion discussion notice and were therefore disabled, which were the vast majority of them.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  03:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata redirect template in secondary minor-planet redirect

I just encountered template {{Wikidata redirect}} in one of the minor-planet redirects, namely (6721) Minamiawaji. When I transferred it to the correct, non-parenthetical version 6721 Minamiawaji, the template showed [(no entity)] instead of the object's name. Unfortunately, my attempt to change the name to the non-parenthetical version on the corresponding WikiData page 6721 Minamiawaji (bottom Wikipedia section) failed with the message: "Could not save due to an error.The save has failed. The link enwiki:List of minor planets: 6001–7000 is already used by item Q313483. You may remove it from Q313483 if it does not belong there or merge the items if they are about the exact same topic." Things don't make much sense to me; thought I let you know since you added said template to the redirect some months ago. Rfassbind – talk 23:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

To editor Rfassbind: fortunately, there is no reason to change things at Wikidata. The Wikidata redirect template takes a |1= parameter that can hold the Wikidata page number that follows the "Q" in the following manner:

{{Rcat shell|
{{Wikidata redirect|151393}}
}}

When the page has a "Wikidata item" link in the left margin, then |1=<number> isn't needed; however, anytime a redirect needs to be attached to a Wikidata item, we can do so whether or not there is a "Wikidata item" link in the left margin. Hope this helps.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  02:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately not much. WikiData page 6721 Minamiawaji (bottom of the page), references minor-planet redirect (6721) Minamiawaji (wrong) rather than 6721 Minamiawaji (correct). As far as I understand it, this is the reason why the former does not need "151393" as parameter while latter requires it for its wikidata template. Otherwise I have no clue why the wrong version has the link bar (left margin) while the correct one does not. Also why are now both redirects tagged with the wikidata tpl, rather than only the correct one? Lastly, wikidate tpl inside a rcat looks terrible, I think. Rfassbind – talk 03:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe there is a way to transfer the Wikidata page to the other redirect. I am not that well-versed in Wikidata. And I'm not sure why it matters, since both redirects can be tied to the Wikidata page with the Wikidata redirect rcat. And I suppose since I worked long and hard on the Redirect category template, I use it whereever it can be used.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  05:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

To editor Rfassbind: found a way, at least in a case like this, to transfer the Wikidata page to the correct redirect. Be well.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for my first, grumpy post above (it was already early in the morning). My bad. I think this this topic is important, as there are tens of thousands #R-to-list for minor planets. Can you point me into the right direction so I can learn more about wikidata's overall goal and the rules how to handle #R-to-lists?

I saw your edit. As far as I understood it you entered the parenthetical version as alias on the top section of WikiData page 6721 Minamiawaji and then you were able to make a change to the non-parenthetical version on the bottom of the page (correct?). This seems not to work for regular cases such as recently named minor plants or other #R-to-list such as for astronomer Plinio Antolini; WikiData page Plinio Antolini (Q530732). I'll better stop here with my feedback. I'm just worried that there is potentially a huge counterproductive misunderstanding between what I'm doing and wikidata. Be well as well. Rfassbind – talk 13:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, Rfassbind, the alias I added didn't make the difference. What I did to make that change was to disable the redirects so Wikidata would sense them and not their target. Once they were disabled, I just did what you did to change the en title on Wikidata, then I re-enabled the redirects. Not sure if that works in every case, but I hope it will lead you to ways and means.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  13:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Thank you. This hack also worked for Plinio Antolini I mentioned above and for recently named 5362 Johnyoung. Of course this is still a hack and not a sensible way to handle thousands of #Rs-to-list. As for your other unanswered question, I hope it makes sense to you to only tag the primary redirect, since it helps to avoid that others would start an article based on a secondary #R, I think. Also I have implemented thousands of {{Rcat}} to these redirects, and I fully support it, but when a "wikidata redirect" is added to a secondary-#R (which I consider unhelpful in the first place), a "rcat"-tpl is distracting from the important message of "avoided double redirect" which displays the correct target (see (6721) Minamiawaji. Rfassbind – talk 14:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was about to suggest that and support it, especially in the case of celestial objects. If it does not have a Wikidata page, then we can forego usage of the Wikidata redirect rcat. And thank you for your great work with these redirects!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Interesting transclusion effect - any idea?

Hi Paine, I observed an interesting effect and thought I'd share it with you just in case you have an idea what might be causing this.

• If you check the incoming links into the T-Series redirect, the last one shown by "What links here?" is a transclusion of "T-Series". Also, if you open "T-Series" for editing and display the preview, it will show a transclusion of "T-Series" as well. This does not happen, if the Rcat {{R from ambiguous}} gets removed from the redirect.
• A similar effect can be observed when you check the links into EAGLE (program) or show the preview while editing the page. In both cases, it will show a transclusion of TopRouter. This is caused by the {{Redir}} template used to display the hatnote. This stray transclusion vanishes as soon as the first parameter of the {{Redir}} template is changed to something different from the name of an existing redirect. Although the template should treat TopRouter only as text, the effect occurs because TopRouter is also a redirect. This also works with other redirect names, but not with names of articles or other text.

I haven't had time to investigate this further, but do you have any idea what might be causing this strange behaviour? Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

To editor Matthiaspaul: haven't seen this that I remember. I'll run some checks.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  17:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

To editor Matthiaspaul: I've isolated this to the following code that was added to {{R from ambiguous term}} back in January by editor Wbm1058:

<includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{#invoke:redirect|isRedirect|{{TALKPAGENAME}}}}|yes|{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME:{{#invoke:redirect|main|{{TALKPAGENAME}}}}}}|{{PAGENAME:{{#invoke:redirect|main|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}}||[[Category:Unsynchronized ambiguous term talk page redirects]]}}}}</includeonly>

To editor Wbm1058: when the above code is removed (see template sandbox) and a null edit is made to redirect T-Series, the transclusion of the T-Series redirect disappears, and then it reappears when the code is added back in. This can be seen both on the What links here page of the redirect and down below the edit screen of the redirect (Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page (help):). I double checked the code and it appears to be spotless, so could this apparent anomaly be caused by Module:Redirect? Please also note that the {{Redirect}} template, which generates the hatnote at EAGLE (program) mentioned above, invokes Module:Redirect hatnote. If there is a problem with the Redirect module, then there might perhaps be a similar one in the Redirect hatnote module?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  19:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what's going on inside the modules but I suspect it may be related to the issue discussed at Template talk:R from move#Recent addition of #ifexist causing trouble at Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings, more specifically m:2015 Community Wishlist Survey/Miscellaneous#Error categorization by #ifexist bug. Invoking isRedirect may have a similar effect as #ifexist. Regarding the flagging of hatnotes, I find that useful for finding misspellings in hatnotes. We shouldn't have hatnotes that say "misspelling" redirects here. So that problem, to me is a nice feature, not a bug. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

#ifexist is notorious for creating spurious links to DAB pages. Templates I know of which do that include (but are not limited to): Template:infobox video game, Template:infobox roller coaster and Template:infobox journal. They're a perishing nuisance to DABfixers. Each new one takes a minimum of a quarter of an hour to work out (more if information is being imported from Wikidata), often resulting in failure to find a solution and attempted discussion on Talk Pages. Narky Blert (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

(coming here from a note on my talkpage by Matthiaspaul) Per the lua reference manual: "Using the title object's getContent() method or accessing the redirectTarget field records it as a "transclusion"" Module:Redirect (currently) actually gets the content of the page and parses it with a regex to find the redirect target so "{{#invoke:redirect|main|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}" makes a transclusion of itself. There isn't really any way to fix this; making Module:Redirect use redirectTarget (as I had, incidently, done a few months ago in Module:Redirect/sandbox) would still create a transclusion per the lua reference manual. The second effect in EAGLE (program) is because Module:Redirect hatnote checks if the target of the redirect linked is the same as the page itself (as it should be) and adds a tracking category if it is different. Checking the target adds the page as a transclusion (and the target is only checked if the page is a redirect). Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, thank you so much for sharing your thoughts on this (and in particular Paine, who is peacefully enduring this discussion on his talk page - please accept my apologies for not having started it at one of the template talk pages and then just pinging you). According to Galobtter's explanation there does not appear to be a solution for this at present. I only wonder why I never observed this particular behaviour earlier, and then within days in two independent places - that's what made me believe it must have been caused by some recent change. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It's my pleasure, Matthiaspaul, and no problemo because it's all good! And thank you all, Galobtter, Narky Blert, wbm1058 for your edifyin' inputs on all this!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  17:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Apitherapy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

To editor Jytdog: respectfully, I opened a discussion on the template's talk page where the other editor, JzG, had removed the entry from the template. And I also pinged you there. I started that discussion after I reverted JzG's edits. So why would you rather put this on my talk page than discuss the edits on that template page?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  02:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

1. diff 17:15, 2 August 2018
2. diff 01:45, 3 August 2018
3. diff 01:56, 3 August 2018

Per BRD you should have opened discussion after #1. It is BRD not BRRDR. Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

To editor Jytdog: the first edit you cite was not a revert, it was my original expanding of the sidebar. The second edit was my revert of JzG's revert (my first revert). The third edit was my revert of your revert (my second revert). And I still await a response to my reliable-source inquiry on the template talk page, to which I've also pinged JzG, and that I first made at 1:48, 3 August 2018, about three minutes after my first revert. I believe I'm still within the guideline, and there are still the questions that nobody's answered: why remove the article from the template when it is reliably sourced, and why remove the expand code from the template on the article page?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  02:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes I know it was not a revert. It was the "b" in bold revert discuss. I have no more to say here. Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank goodness, and thank you so much for bringing this to my talk page!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Jytdog (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing

Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a pleasure, Whatamidoing (WMF), more than you know!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  18:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Portals

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, The Transhumanist, for letting me in on this! I'll be glad to check things out and help where I can.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  19:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. ()

Hello Paine Ellsworth, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

• New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
• Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
• Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

• Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

• The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2018

• From the editor: If only if

• Op-ed: The last leg of the Admin Ship's current cruise

• Opinion: Wrestling with Wikipedia reality

• News and notes: Another newspaper for Wikipedia; Wikimania 2018 ends; changes at NPR

• In the media: Blackouts in Europe; Wikipedia and capitalists; WMF Jet Set

• Discussion report: Wikipedias take action against EU copyright proposal, plus new user right proposals

• Featured content: Wikipedia's best content in images and prose

• Arbitration report: Status quo processes retained in two disputes

• Traffic report: Soccer, football, call it what you like – that and summer movies leave room for little else

• Technology report: New bots, new prefs

• Gallery: Independence days, national holidays, and football – all in July

• Blog: Motivation of two editors

• Recent research: Different Wikipedias use different images; editing contests more successful than edit-a-thons

• Humour: It's all the same

• Essay: Wikipedia does not need you

• From the archives: The pending changes fiasco: how an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Wanted to say

You are currently all over my watchlist and it is making me laugh. Are you working from a list of your own, or something else? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 17:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

To editor Roxy the dog: hi! and that does happen sometimes when I work with templates. Been working with several here lately, and what happens is that, well, for example, I'll go through the links and expand a section of a template in its appropriate article. Since these articles are all similar in one way or another, they're likely to all or nearly all be on someone's watchlist. Hope this helps! and btw, read about Roxy and I'm sorry for your loss. Last year I lost my Molly to cancer, truly a bummer. You be well, editor Roxy, the dog.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  17:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

PS. Congratulations on being registered on Wikipedia for ten years last January! PS left by  Paine  18:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

A.F.C. Bournemouth‎

How on earth do you work out the article needs moving with eight people against seven for a move? Govvy (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

To editor Govvy: thank you for coming to my talk page! As I explained, the support arguments/rationales were stronger than the oppose ones, at least in my opinion as an objective, non-involved closer. Gentle reminder that it is the strength of the rationales and not the !vote count that determines the outcome in a requested move discussion. And the count was nine in support of the move and eight against, counting the nom as one support !vote. That is one reason I called it a "rough" consensus.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  00:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Let me qualify that count by pointing out that one support was "conditional", and since as closer I did not support that condition, I did not count that. So the !vote count was even; however, the strength of the support rationales indicated to me that the page should be moved.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  00:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

You need a clear consensus to move, a majority vote and there wasn't one. I can only suggest you move it all back and retract your verdict. I've been told on the Football project, this could goto WP:AN. Govvy (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

As I read your response, at first I was amenable; however, then I read your threat. Sorry, but as a participant who did not get their way, you are not being objective about this. Do what you will.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  10:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Threat? I am not threatening you, have you been to the football project talk page? In tennis a player has to win by two clear points, a majority vote requires more than a 50/50 or 51/49 split etc. Govvy (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

You threaten me with AN and you don't even realize it's a threat? Hard to swallow from an editor who's been registered for such a long time. Also difficult for me to AGF on your part. Don't know how many times you've read WP:CONSENSUS, but maybe you'll want to refresh your memory?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  11:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I never threatened you with AN, did you even read what I wrote? Did you visit WP:WikiProject Football? If you feel I am threatening you, then I guess I can safely say you haven't read all the arguments correctly for, for and against said move which you just did. I am off now, I think you need to re-evaluate and have a good look over your work. Govvy (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

...this could goto WP:AN.

If you don't see those words, your words, as a threat, then it is you who need to re-evaluate, just as you need to look over the RM with an objective eye. As you wish, I shall also look things over again.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  11:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I think this should go to an RfC as suggested, so whether it's reopened, overturned or whatever is not terribly important, except as input to that RfC. Interested as always in other views. Andrewa (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

To editor Andrewa: not to change the subject, just noticed that you have linked to a dab page in the box at the TOP of your talk page. You might want to consider linking to a section or even linking to the Wiktionary link. Back to the biz, I still think an RfC would be best. Honestly, I'm still in "objective mode" on the subject and have given it little thought as to whether or not to use full stops. Leaning a tiny bit toward omitting them, though. Best to you!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  17:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Fixed thank you. You might want to hat or otherwise archive this post and the one to which it replies... your talk page, your call entirely. Andrewa (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Move review for A.F.C. Bournemouth

An editor has asked for a Move review of A.F.C. Bournemouth. 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. Govvy (talk) 12:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

To editor Govvy: thank you for the notice and for first discussing the close with me here!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  12:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I did try, but some other people were unhappy on the footy project talk page. Don't know, but this seemed like the right thing to do. Govvy (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• You are an excellent closer and a very pleasant person to work with. I don’t know why you are not an admin, maybe there is a reason, I don’t know. You are outstanding among the NACers, and it is the junior Wikipedians I have in mind when arguing that the NAC standard needs to be very conservative. Being publicly reviewed is always stressful, I hope you handle it as well as you appear to. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, don't give it another thought. I'm well aware of your ideas about NACers. I'm not an admin because I choose not to be an admin. Fact is, I have never been able to think of a good reason why I should be an admin. I don't need the tools, because the few times they'd come in handy, I can always find an admin willing to help. So frankly, I'd fail a 2nd Rfa right from the getgo. I would be unable to justify having the mop. I no longer stress about MRs and similar things, because they can be so darned educational as long as one keeps a willing perspective. Thanks again!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  00:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I was an admin on the old Sierra game servers, at times it was a pain, community members demanding this, that and another, with, without evidence. I don't think I would want to be an admin on wiki either based on that experience. Govvy (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Your closure of Talk:In_My_Feelings_(song)#Requested move 3 August 2018

How did you weight the strength of the Support votes and the Oppose votes (taking in to account policies and guidelines such as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), or did you just do a headcount and conclude "No consensus" as the vote was evenly divided? Iffy★Chat -- 11:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Iffy, thank you for coming to my talk page! Yes, there were rationales for PTOPIC and yet there were opposers who argued against PTOPIC with NOPRIMARYTOPIC. For as long as I've been closing RMs, I've always used the strengths of the arguments/rationales to determine the outcome. I don't just do a !vote count and use that, because the arguments are much more important than the number of !votes. Don't take my word for it, just go to Move review and read the discussion for A.F.C. Bournemouth. I closed that debate as "moved" even though the !vote count was eight to eight. I determined that the support arguments were significantly stronger than the oppose rationales. An editor disagreed with me and took it to MR. So it's not about the number of !votes, it's all about how strong the arguments are. Thanks again!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  13:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I think this discussion is pretty much the same as how you initially interpreted what happened at the football club RM you reference above, the oppose voters supported their argument primarily with WP:OSE and recentism, while the support voters presented evidence as to why there was a primary topic, some believing it to be clear/obviously the case. I still feel the votes should have been weighted towards support, and thus the page moved as requested (I will be taking this to move review in the next few hours as this could just be bias from my side as I voted support). Iffy★Chat -- 14:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, Iffy, and we'll see what the move reviewers think about it.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Copied to Move review

Paine Ellsworth, I note you've declared above that you did consider the strengths of the arguments, but you did not answer the question of how you weighted the strengths. I suspect you might have been a bit quick in your assessment, and did not dig down. Yes, there was some claim for NOPRIMARYTOPIC, but what was the argument for that, much less its strength? For example, did you think noting "generic title, long list of songs" actually supported the NOPRIMARYTOPIC argument? How? NOPRIMARYTOPIC simple says if the PRIMARYTOPIC criteria is not met, there is no primary topic. So the relevant evidence is whether the criteria is met. The Supporters gave evidence that the song was "much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined" (which is the criteria), and opposers didn't even counter that point. It's unfortunate to have to reverse a close, but it's less sad if the closer realizes the error and self-corrects... --В²C ☎ 20:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC) I could be wrong, of that there is no doubt. However, the endorsement args at MR say quite a lot about my reasons. And like Dekimasu, who wrote, "...I am troubled by the idea that an argument based upon one prong of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should be considered stronger than arguments countering it which are based upon the other prong," I questioned the oppose args just as much as I questioned the support args. And in my humble estimation, they ran just about even, well, yes, the supporters' args may have been somewhat stronger; however, consensus just isn't there. YMMV.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  20:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

To editor Born2cycle: With your agreement, I'd like to copy the above hatted discussion to MR so it won't be perceived as a discussion fork.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  21:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure. --В²C ☎ 23:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!, and Y done.  Paine  00:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Move review for In My Feelings (song)

An editor has asked for a Move review of In My Feelings (song). 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. Iffy★Chat -- 15:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, Iffy! It's interesting how I almost always close the controversial RMs, yet there may be many, many months without a MR and here we are going to review on two RMs in one month! Anyway, there is always the possibility that I was wrong, so let's see what we can learn.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata and minor-planet redirects

Since we talked about minor planets and Wikidata recently, I would like to ask you to give some insight into a discussion on my Wikidata user page. Another user suggested not to link redirects on Wikidata as only articles should be linked. Thx for your expertise. Rfassbind – talk 13:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

To editor Rfassbind: I've always thought it curious that some editors don't want redirects to link to Wikidata pages. Maybe now we'll find out why that is.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

• From the editor: Today's young adults don't know a world without Wikipedia

• Interview: 2018 Wikimedian of the Year, Farkhad Fatkullin

• News and notes: Flying high; low practice from Wikipedia 'cleansing' agency; where do our donations go? RfA sees a new trend

• In the media: Quicksilver AI writes articles

• Discussion report: Drafting an interface administrator policy

• Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

• Special report: Wikimania 2018

• Traffic report: Aretha dies – getting just 2,000 short of 5 million hits

• Technology report: Technical enhancements and a request to prioritize upcoming work

• Gallery: Leapfrog, historic Thai cave, and a rhythmic beat

• Recent research: Wehrmacht on Wikipedia, neural networks writing biographies

• Humour: Signpost editor censors herself

• Essay: Principle of Some Astonishment

• From the archives: Playing with Wikipedia words

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018

Hello Paine Ellsworth, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news

• The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.

As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.

• There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Coordinator tasks for more info to see if you can help out.

Other

• A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.

Moving to Draft and Page Mover

• Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
• If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
• Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
• The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js^(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
• The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget. In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions. MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues. User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page) User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50). User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you. User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link. User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion. User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

• From the editor: Is this the new normal?

• News and notes: European copyright law moves forward

• In the media: Knowledge under fire

• Discussion report: Interface Admin policy proposal, part 2

• Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbcom

• Traffic report: John McCain's death generates over 7 million hits, followed by historical low

• Technology report: Paying attention to your mobile

• Gallery: A pat on the back

• Blog: After a catastrophic fire at the National Museum of Brazil, a drive to preserve what knowledge remains

• Recent research: How talk page use has changed since 2005; censorship shocks lead to centralization; is vandalism caused by workplace boredom?

• Humour: Signpost Crossword Puzzle

• Essay: Expressing thanks

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

{Redr}, its distinct parameters, Miscellaneous redirects

Hi, Paine. Happy New Year. I am no longer a hard worker right here, and barely any worker on redirects. This concerns miscellaneous redirects. If you have retired from that effort, please give me a lead.

Last hour I corrected and expanded one R from person. Upon save ([1] [old version]), I redd the warning :

• "Important – Please Read! This template should not be applied without parameters ..."

and the familiar accompaniment:

• "Manifold sort: If help is needed to determine appropriate categories, then this redirect populates Category:Miscellaneous redirects ..."

So I inserted a pipe, closing the hatnote parameter and initiating a second parameter, if i understand correctly. See the redirect Sebastian Walker (publisher) [current]. Examining the two page footers, as displayed by this browser, I find no difference but the listing "Miscellaneous redirects" among Hidden categories. All the expected categories are populated in both cases regardless whether the R templates are included in the first parameter with the hatnote text, or as a separate second parameter. Also the hatnote is displayed identically, whether or not its text is terminated as a parameter value. Perhaps the template operation can be tweaked to ignore such, rather than display the warning and populate Miscellaneous redirects.

I'm not sure how to interpret the generalization, "This template is a learning tool ...". Is the template, used with parameter values that specify Redirect categories, still recommended? And the template redirect 'Redr' rather than the long name? --P64 (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi P64, good to hear from you! Yes, the {{Rcat shell}} is still recommended for use to tag redirects with rcats. What you experienced is just the design aspect that requires the rcat templates to go in either the first or second unnamed parameter, |1= or |2=, and the fact that the hatnote is applied by the named parameter, |h=. The hatnote must end in a pipe to place the rcats in the first unnamed parameter. The warning text was added for two main reasons: 1) some experienced editors, who know how to apply rcats, were adding just the bare Rcat shell and leaving the categorization to those of us who monitor the Miscellaneous redirects category, and 2) some editors wanted to apply the Rcat shell using a bot, which would have flooded the Misc. category and would have made it impossible to maintain.

I've reworded the warning to hopefully make it clearer... "For editors who want to learn how to categorize redirects, this template is a learning tool." since the rcat shell is much more than just a learning tool. It's okay to use either the shortcuts, "Redr", "Rcat shell", et al., as well as the long name, "Redirect category shell". They all work equally well. These days I usually use the long names even for rcats, because inexperienced editors find the long names more useful, which shortens their learning curve. It's very easy and quick to apply the long names when the TemplateScript is used. Best of Everything to you and I hope all is well!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  02:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Paine Ellsworth, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal

• There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
• Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!

Project updates

• ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
• There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.

New scripts

• User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js^(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2018

• From the editors: The Signpost is still afloat, just barely

• Op-ed: Wikipedia's Strickland affair

• News and notes: WMF gets a million bucks

• In the media: Bans, celebs, and bias

• Discussion report: Mediation Committee and proposed deletion reform

• Traffic report: Unsurprisingly, sport leads the field – or the ring

• Technology report: Bots galore!

• Special report: NPP needs you

• Special report 2: Now Wikidata is six

• In focus: Alexa

• Gallery: Out of this world!

• Recent research: Wikimedia Commons worth $28.9 billion

• Humour: Talk page humour

• Opinion: Strickland incident

• From the archives: The Gardner Interview

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Quaternary (period) error message in Holocene article

You edited Template:Quaternary (period) on 28 October 2018, for example by including the "collapse" parameter. I think this is causing an error "Template:collapse is not available for use in articles (see MOS:COLLAPSE)" in the Holocene article. Can you investigate this problem, please. GeoWriter (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, GeoWriter, for letting me know! Should have tested it more thoroughly. I have removed the Collapse template for now, and I won't collapse those notes unless I find a way to do it without adversely affecting those with accessibility issues.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  19:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Editing News #2—2018

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter • Subscription list on the English Wikipedia

Did you know?

Did you know that you can use the visual editor on a mobile device?

Tap on the pencil icon to start editing. The page will probably open in the wikitext editor.

You will see another pencil icon in the toolbar. Tap on that pencil icon to the switch between visual editing and wikitext editing.

Remember to publish your changes when you're done.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has wrapped up most of their work on the 2017 wikitext editor and the visual diff tool. The team has begun investigating the needs of editors who use mobile devices. Their work board is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are fixing bugs and improving mobile editing.

Recent changes

• The Editing team has published an initial report about mobile editing.
• The Editing team has begun a design study of visual editing on the mobile website. New editors have trouble doing basic tasks on a smartphone, such as adding links to Wikipedia articles. You can read the report.
• The Reading team is working on a separate mobile-based contributions project.
• The 2006 wikitext editor is no longer supported. If you used that toolbar, then you will no longer see any toolbar. You may choose another editing tool in your editing preferences, local gadgets, or beta features.
• The Editing team described the history and status of VisualEditor in this recorded public presentation (starting at 29 minutes, 30 seconds).
• The Language team released a new version of Content Translation (CX2) last month, on International Translation Day. It integrates the visual editor to support templates, tables, and images. It also produces better wikitext when the translated article is published. [2]

Let's work together

• The Editing team wants to improve visual editing on the mobile website. Please read their ideas and tell the team what you think would help editors who use the mobile site.
• The Community Wishlist Survey begins next week.
• If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly. We will notify you when the next issue is ready for translation. Thank you!

— Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Anyone can edit listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Anyone can edit. Since you had some involvement with the Anyone can edit redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Paine Ellsworth,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

• Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Paine Ellsworth. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Gerda! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  12:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Care for a cup of tea, after fixing all those redirects on religion topics? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Whew! Thank you, that was definitely one of the longer ones. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  17:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #023, 25 Nov 2018

There are now 4,180 portals.

Will we break 5,000 by the end of the year?

I know we can. But, that is up to you!

( New portals are created with {{subst:Basic portal start page}} or {{subst:bpsp}} )

Happy Holidays

Hello everyone! Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice (if it's occurring in your area of the world), and thanks for your work in maintaining, improving, and expanding portals. Cheers,    — The Transhumanist   06:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Jingling along

The following portals have been created since the last issue:

1. Advanced Micro Devices
2. Aqua Teen Hunger Force
3. Aquatic ecosystems
4. Blackberries
5. Blade
6. Blake and Mortimer
7. Climate
8. Democratic Party
9. Dua Lipa
10. Eels
11. Eggs
12. Emmy Awards
13. Fallout
14. Flutes and whistles
15. Geophysics
16. Ghost
17. Hartford Whalers
18. HBO
19. Hot sauces
20. International System of Units
21. Jawaharlal Nehru
22. Kendrick Lamar
23. KFC
24. Kingdom of England
25. M.I.A.
26. Marvel Comics
27. Marvel Entertainment
28. Minerals
29. Mixed martial arts
30. Money
31. MTV
32. Museums
33. National Hockey League
34. Natural resources
35. Nature
36. NBC
37. Nehru–Gandhi family
38. Orthoptera
39. PATH
40. Pears
41. Physiology
42. Ponds
43. Pope Francis
44. Potatoes
45. Presidents of the United States
46. Republican Party
47. Salad dressings
48. Santiago
49. Six Flags
50. Stan Lee
51. Starbucks
52. Stem cells
53. Systems of measurement
54. SZA
55. The West Wing
56. Tintin
57. Tomato sauces
58. Tove Lo
59. Viticulture
60. Waffles
61. Wendy's
62. White House
63. Will Smith
64. Winemaking

Keep 'em coming!

By the way, the above list was generated using this Petscan query. It can be easily modified by changing the date. The data page (under the Output tab) also has options for receiving the data in CSV or tabbed format, which some operating systems automatically load into a spreadsheet program for ease of use, such as copying and pasting the desired column (like page names).

In closing

We'll keep it short this issue.

Expect a flood next time. Or the one after that.

Cheerio,    — The Transhumanist   07:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi Paine,

I noticed you signed up as a participant at WP:WPPORT. I'm glad you did.

A great deal has happened since the RfC last spring. In case you'd like to catch up with the newsletter, the archives can be found at WP:WPPORTNA.

We dream up new features at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Design#Discussions about possible cool new features.

The main portal model is contained in {{bpsp}}, and is packed with templates.

You can find other useful templates listed on the {{Portal templates navbox}}.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   11:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: I'll be contacting you again soon, about AWB.

Thank you, The Transhumanist! I look forward to it. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  21:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

AWB tasks

Nice. I see that you are way up on WP:NOE, so I don't have to be gentle.

Okay, here's the situation: we've added thousands of new portals. Many of those are orphaned. They need links leading to them.

There are 3 main links that we have been concentrating on, that can be placed using AWB:

For each portal...

1. a {{Portal}} box at the top of the corresponding (like-named) category page. In the form {{Portal|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}. I've been removing other portal boxes, because they are off-topic for the lead section of a category page.
2. a portal link at the bottom of corresponding (like-named) navbox footer template, in the | below = section, using * {{icon|Portal}} [[Portal:{{subst:PAGENAME}}|Portal]]. If there is no | below = , add it.
3. placing * {{Portal inline|size=tiny|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}} in the See also section of the corresponding (like-named) root article. If there is no See also section, make one. Generally remove other portal links unless they are particularly on-topic. If there are columns, the link needs to go in there.

These are somewhat advanced AWB tasks, because you'll hit contingencies as you go along which will require that you create additional regexes. Such cases tend to repeat, so the task gets faster as you go along.

You'll also be using the skipping features a lot, most likely, for pages that do not apply. Like templates that are not corresponding navboxes (there's competition for the titles), soft category redirects, and so on.

For each of these tasks, to get the starting list takes a bit of list judo...

For example, for placing the portal box on like-named categories...

You get a list of All portals, then convert that to a list of categories in a sandbox by swapping out the prefix, and pull the resulting blue links off the sandbox into AWB.

You can then use AWB's preparse feature to skip existing portal box placements, using AWB's %%title%% magic word to avoid matching just any portal box.

If you have a second computer, it helps to use that to check the work (via contribs and browser tabs). Or another window. A user can be logged in to WP multiple times.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.

Portals are lucky that you came along. I look forward to working with you.

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   01:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again, The Transhumanist! Thing is, I edit templates manually because the ones I edit have individual needs that are not suited to AWB editing. I mostly add /doc pages and improve state= parameters and default settings, and I also do table-template conversions to sidebars. I do add Portal pages to Below sections when appropriate, but I do that along with other edits that are also needed. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  17:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. But, we have something like 2000 templates to edit. The navbox templates we are concerned with here are all very similar, and therefore applicable to AWB processing. See also sections are even easier, while category pages are the easiest of the three tasks listed above. I was hoping that you were more than a beginner AWB user, and could handle these multi-regex tasks. If not, I can coach you on the use of AWB for taking on more complex tasks like these. What do you say?    — The Transhumanist   12:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

To editor The Transhumanist: well, thank you for the offer. I have not really used AWB all that much, so I'm not very far beyond being a "beginner user". I do like to improve templates, but as I said, the templates I improve often need lots and lots of different types of edits, and I would prefer to continue with that. I do understand the usefulness of bots and AWB, so don't get me wrong; however, I really do prefer to work with what I have on my plate right now. Thanks again! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  05:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

That's understandable. My plate is full, too. If and when you become ready to put WP:AWB through its paces, let me know. For repetitive edits on simple pages (like most articles, category pages, and templates), it can handle up to 60 or so edits per minute.    — The Transhumanist   19:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

• From the editor: Time for a truce

• Op-ed: Looking back, looking forward: A beginner's experience on Wikipedia

• Special report: The Christmas wishlist

• Opinion: The blogosphere migrates to Galaxy WMF

• News and notes: Reviewer of the year, WikiCup winner, and the 2019 Wikimedia Summit

• Reflections: Wikipedia, history, and the 100th anniversary of Armistice Day

• In the media: Court-ordered article redaction, paid editing, and rock stars

• Discussion report: Farewell, Mediation Committee

• Arbitration report: A long break ends

• Traffic report: Queen reigns for four weeks straight

• Gallery: Intersections

• Recent research: Why do the most active Wikipedians burn out?; only 4% of students vandalize

• Essay: No one cares about your garage band

• Humour: The dark side of our favorite root vegetable

• From the archives: Ars longa, vita brevis

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for sorting the OR in Robert Cochrane to its Talk Page. A friendly cookie to a helpful & kindly Wikipedian! Manytexts (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Manytexts! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  13:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Say what...?

"I close RMs all the time and nominators do NOT also "support", or if they do, their !vote is removed" - after removing said "!vote" twice, the second time from a closed discussion, do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? (btw- I take it there aren't any admin backlogs, anywhere, right now...) - wolf 20:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thing is, I'm a firm follower of being bold: "Though the boldness of contributors like you is one of Wikipedia's greatest assets, it is important that you take care of the common good and not edit disruptively or recklessly." To me, this means that things like not double supporting in an RM came about through community consensus, and going against consensus should only be done when there is very good reason to do so. I didn't take out your extra support because I think you're a bad editor, I took it out because the consensus of the Wikipedia community is to consider an editor's nomination as support for a requested move, and there is no need for a second bulleted support !vote. You can still make a comment and of course respond to others in the discussion. Just be careful not to WP:BLUDGEON other editors. Best to you, wolf! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  00:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Jane Seymour

I noticed that you recently removed the Too much detail tag in the ancestry section of this article. I agree that the tag is inappropriate. There's currently a discussion on the article's talk page about this. It'd be super if you could participate over there. This edit war has been going on for some time (on various pages) and it would be great to have a substantive discussion and actually reach consensus on this sort of thing. Best, Flyte35 (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello Paine Ellsworth,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.

Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.

Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello PE, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 19:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, MarnetteD! And as alway, may your heart be filled with love and cheer over the holidays and forever! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  22:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:R with possibilties listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:R with possibilties. Since you had some involvement with the Template:R with possibilties redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, UnitedStatesian, for the heads up! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  00:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Portals in navboxes

Hi! Please could you stop adding portals to navboxes unless they match the topic of the navbox EXACTLY. This discussion may be of interest. --woodensuperman 11:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and you might want to have a look at WP:CAT#T too - I notice that when you are adding /doc subpages, you're placing a lot of templates into mainspace categories. --woodensuperman 12:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

To editor Woodensuperman: I can understand if you don't want portal links on navbars, but I have no idea what you're talking about as regards categorization. I usually just use the same categories that were already there and just transfer them to the /doc page. The only time I will add a category is when the template has no categories, and then I find a similar template and use its category(ies). Can you give me an example of where I've added a template to a mainspace category that it did not already populate? Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  13:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018

• From the editors: Where to draw the line in reporting?

• Op-ed: Wikipedia not trumped by Trump appointee

• Special report: The Signpost got 380,000+ views in 2018, sounds reasonable enough, right?

• News and notes: Some wishes do come true

• In the media: Political hijinks

• Discussion report: A new record low for RfA

• WikiProject report: Articlegenesis

• Arbitration report: Year ends with one active case

• Traffic report: Queen dethroned by U.S. presidents

• Gallery: Sun and Moon, water and stone

• Blog: News from the WMF

• Humour: I believe in Bigfoot

• Essay: Requests for medication

• From the archives: Compromised admin accounts – again

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #024, 26 Dec 2018

Last issue, I mentioned there would be a flood, and so, here it is...

Portals status

We now have 4,620 portals.

And the race to pass 5,000 by year's end is on...

Can we make it?

The New Year, and the 5,001st portal, await.

( New portals are created with {{subst:Basic portal start page}} or {{subst:bpsp}} )

Evad is back!

After disappearing in mid-thread, Evad37 has returned from a longer than expected wikibreak.

Be sure to welcome him back.

Improved cropping is coming to Portal image banner

User:FR30799386 is working on making {{Portal image banner}} even better by enabling it to chop the top off an image as well as the bottom.

Many pictures aren't suitable for banners because they are too tall. Therefor, User:FR30799386 added cropping to this template, so that an editor could specify part of a picture to be used rather than the whole thing.

Upgrade of flagship portals is underway

Work has begun on upgrading Wikipedia's flagship portals (those listed at the top of the Main page).

So far, Portal:Geography, Portal:History, and Portal:Technology have been revamped. Of course, you are welcome to improve them further.

Work continues on the other five. Feel free to join in on the fun.

Spotting missing portals that are redirects

In place of many missing portals, there is a redirect that leads to "the next best topic", such as a parent topic.

Most of these were created before we had the tools to easily create portals (they used to take 6 hours or more to create, because it was all done manually). Rather than leave a portal link red, some editors thought it was best that those titles led somewhere.

The subjects that have sufficient coverage should have their own portals rather than a redirect to some other subject.

Unfortunately, being blue like all other live links, redirects are harder to spot than redlinks.

To spot redirects easily, you can make them all appear green.

Keep 'em coming!

And I'll see you next issue.

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   08:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20