User talk: Paine Ellsworth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Giraffa camelopardalis angolensis (head).jpg
W I K I P E D I A   R O C K S !
Make it YOURS?

Going somewhere?  Go with all your red animated beating heart!
Anything else just wastes your time, doesn't it?

Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth

Jimbo peeking out

old man standing on top of stepladder in library with very tall shelves

Women lead, men archive
(just kidding; I believe in no division of labor/duty).

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5
6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10
11 = VE archive
Past Poms Archive
Please do your best not to pigeonhole people!
Active Wikipedians – click to enlarge

My little corner[edit]

Flashing bulbB Work in progress...


Wikipedia is a magic quilt that soars over a world of imagination without end! See also: [1]

1721 Tales 100.jpg
Main articles: Main page and History of Wikipedia
See also Wikipedia in the media

Oh! what a tangled web we weave
Whene'er we serve as Wikipedians!

Fact is, when you have opened and closed at least a dozen browser tabs or windows while you edit this encyclopedia, then you must be doing something right!


Follow the bouncing

You don't get no respect?[edit]

uhm, guess I got carried away... just a little bit...

Paine's Favorite Poetry[edit]

O camerado close! O you and me at last, and us two only.
O a word to clear one's path ahead endlessly!
O something ecstatic and undemonstrable! O music wild!
O now I triumph—and you shall also;
O hand in hand—O wholesome pleasure—O one more desirer and lover!
O to haste firm holding—to haste, haste on with me.

  – Walt WhitmanStarting from Paumanok, verse 19.

Paine's Own...
User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Poms
  – Paine Ellsworth

Countering systemic bias (CSB)[edit]

Flashing bulbBanimated heartbeat

WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks
This project creates new articles and improves neglected ones.

Review and Improve: Origin of AIDS – continue investigation!

Vandal info[edit]

Herostratus defcon maritime 4.jpg

Small craft advisory. (Low to moderate level of vandalism.)

3.6CVS / 3.1RPM according to DefconBot09:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC) change

Talk page search code[edit]

Flashing bulbB Copy and paste the following code to your talk page edit window...

prefix=User talk:(your exact Username here)
searchbuttonlabel=Search (your Username or a nickname here) Talk page and Archives

and on your talk page that code will render...

As an example, my code looks like...

prefix=User talk:Paine Ellsworth
searchbuttonlabel=Search the Ellsworth Talk page and Archives

and up above in my Welcome box that code renders...

 Joys! Paine

The Wikipedia SignpostThe Wikipedia Signpost (ancient name)[edit]

Archives of The Signpost

VisualEditor newsletters[edit]

You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's the signpost up ahead – your next stop...


New messages go below this line – down to the bottom of this page, please.[edit]

Does music sooth the soul?[edit]

Paine, do you enjoy music at all, as an encyclopedic topic?—John Cline (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do like music – sometimes I listen to music while I edit, and I've edited many song, album, EP articles and their redirects. I don't know about "souls"; however, I do find music to be a calm and soothing influence over the savage beast. Face-smile.svg – Paine  02:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
That is potentially very good news. If you are at all interested, I couldn't ask for more competent help, or fresher ideas than you could bring to the table at WP:RECP and P:RECP. Be as bold as you like, if you would like. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, John, I'm honored that you asked! I have some errands and tasks, and then I'll look in on those links. Joys! – Paine 
Well, John, I have taken a look at the project and portal pages, and I've started with improving the so-called "inactive" Portal:Featured content/Portals that is used on the portal page. There were several missing images that showed "Error..." in big red letters, so I replaced those. Also, there were two missing numbers – apparently portals that had been removed – so I installed two portals (P:RECP can be found at #88) and updated the "max switch" value. If I see anything else that needs a tweak, I'll take care of it. Joys! – Paine  17:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
That's great. I didn't have much help and needed plenty. let me know if something is confusing which wouldn't surprise, and soon enough, if you hadn't found them sooner, I will ask you to look at a few template configurations to see how they could be better and also to see if any of it could be useful with rcat endeavors. Best regards.—John Cline (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello, When you are able, please look at the three pages trying to end up here. For some reason I can't figure, magic words don't render any output on these pages. Do you know why?—John Cline (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, very confusing. Forgive me, John, it may be the meds, but I don't seem to be able to put two and two together today. If the three pages that are trying to end up in the non-existing category, Category:Wikiproject Redirect s, are CAT:R, CAT:RDR and CAT:RE, then they have already ended up there, at least in my browser, which is IEv10. Also, I don't understand:
  • What is or are the magic word or words that you're trying to get to render output on those shortcut pages?
  • What is the need for such a complicated template as {{WPRe}}, which appears to fulfill the same functions as other templates that already exist? For example, the {{This is a redirect}} template already places rcats on redirects and has a parameter, "e#", that already adds explanatory text(s) when necessary. So what purpose is served by {{WPRe}} that is not already served by other templates? – Paine  19:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • One more confusing item – you seem to be placing {{WPRe}} on rcats. What you may not realize is that once the project banner is approved and placed on rcat talk pages, they will then be properly categorized as project pages of interest. What you are doing with {{WPRe}} appears to be redundant. Please clarify. – Paine 
I'm sure you are correct, I'll not add it any more and I'll handle removing it as well.—John Cline (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Regroup & clarify[edit]

I think I put the cart before the horse Paine; I apologize. I'll stick with the sandbox to develop any future proposals. Anyway, one thing I was working on probably did seem duplicative of the {{Redr}}, though I intended it as complimentary. If in fact {{Redr}} duplicates what I was working towards, I didn't realize this, apologizing again for my error. If on the other hand, I am correct, that {{This is a redirect}} doesn't work similar to a {{banner shell}}, then I think it would be useful if a template could shell any redirect configured with:

Individual {{Rcat}}s With a shell; as such:
#REDIRECT [[(target page name)]]

{{R from album}}
{{R to list}}
{{R to anchor}}
#REDIRECT [[(target page name)]]

{{R from album}}
{{R to list}}
{{R to anchor}}

And subsequently render identical output as if the syntax had been reconfigured into {{Redr|from album|to list|to anchor}}. Does {{Redr}} already do this, or do you agree that a "shell" switch would be useful?—John Cline (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, {{Redr}} can already tag redirects directly with
{{Redr|from album|to list|to anchor}} or
{{Redr|R from album|R to list|R to anchor}}
...whichever editors prefer. {{This is a redirect}} is a meta- or master template, so I suppose it is already a type of "shell" template, if I understand the term correctly. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 12:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The difference is that where {{Redr}} requires you to modify the {{Rcat}}'s syntax by replacing the opening brackets with a pipe and removing the closing brackets for each individual rcat, a shell encases the existing syntax without modification. Consider the examples:
Side by side by side comparison
{{Redr|shell}} configuration
uses a #switch: inside {{Redr}}
{{Redr shell}}
would be a separate template
#REDIRECT [[(target page name)]]

|R from album
|R to list
|R to anchor

#REDIRECT [[(target page name)]]

{{R from album}}
{{R to list}}
{{R to anchor}}

#REDIRECT [[(target page name)]]

{{Redr shell|
{{R from album}}
{{R to list}}
{{R to anchor}}

I feel this would give a convenience option for redirects that are already configured with individual rcats whereas a redirect that has not been categorized at all would probably be more convenient using the existing formating style. This is one aspect I did want you to consider and look forward to seeing your reply.—John Cline (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, now I see it – very similar to other shell templates such as {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}. For a long time I searched for a way to pass the individual parameters of rcats to the {{Redr}} template. Because that template uses pipes to separate its parameters, and because my knowledge of the #switch function is very poor, it took a long time for me to figure out how to pass individual rcat parameters to Redr. A shell like the one you propose would have worked and would have made it easy. I did finally figure out how to pass the parameters, though, so Redr works even better than the shell, because the rcats can be added without the leading "R", which over time saves a lot of keystrokes, since most rcats either don't have parameters or don't usually need to pass them to Redr.
Not sure what you mean by it being more convenient to use a shell on already-configured redirects, but not on redirects with rcats? – Paine  21:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I just figure if a redirect only has:

#REDIRECT [[Target page name]]

up top, the better option would be:

'{{Redr|from album|to list|to anchor}}.

If the redirect already has two or three rcats in place:

#REDIRECT [[Target page name]]

{{R from album}}
{{R to list }}
{{R to anchor}}

the better option I think, would be to "shell" them:

#REDIRECT [[Target page name]]

{{R shell|
{{R from album}}
{{R to list }}
{{R to anchor}}

They're just ideas is all; hoping some might develop into something useful. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Your ideas of a shell template do have merit. I just wish we had had this talk many moons ago when I was trying to find a way to pass those parameters. For example:
  • For a redirect in English to a target in, say, Arabic:
#REDIRECT [[(target article name)]]

{{R shell|
{{R from alternative language|en|ar}}
...may have been easier to implement and more preferable to:
#REDIRECT [[(target article name)]]

{{Redr|from alternative language|p1=en|n1=ar}}
...which is where {{Redr}} is now – it uses p# to pass the first rcat parameter, n# to pass the second and e# to provide any extra information needed. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 00:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


I'm guessing from User talk: Paine Ellsworth/Workpage that you'll be chasing me on this at some point, so this is me preempting that. Unlike CAT: or H:, "U" is not a namespace or pseudo-namespace, and as a result your page is not actually a shortcut as described at Wikipedia:Shortcut and therefore not exempt from WP:CSD#R2. Redirects from the mainspace to the userspace are simply not allowed.--Jac16888 Talk 17:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I suppose that, at first, I considered "chasing" you, but I'm getting too old to be concerned about the raised hairs on the back of my neck, especially over such trivial issues. I think you're incorrect because:
  • WP:SC is a guideline – I do not read anywhere within that guideline that "U:" cannot be used as a shortcut prefix, a pseudonamespace shortcut. Nowhere does it say that my shortcut is "simply not allowed".
  • I contested your CSD banner by removing it – BRD guides us then to discuss it rather than for you to just go ahead and delete it.
So, thank you for at least opening a discussion on the matter, Jac16888, and I'm sure I haven't changed your mind. I would just ask that you ask yourself, "Why?" Why would anyone consider a harmless, low-maintenance, properly categorized (unprintworthy, so it will never be seen in a printed version of Wikipedia) shortcut that a volunteer contributor considers quite useful, to be something that is undesirable and must be deleted? – U:pe (– Paine  17:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC))
SC clearly states what the only pseudonamespaces are, U is not one. I did not tag the page, I deleted it after you removed the tag (which you should not have done), I was well within policy to delete a page which clearly meets a CSD criteria without discussion. The why is simple, and there are several reasons. One, a link from the mainspace to a userspace can imply to non-experienced editors following a link that your page is actually an article. Two, I can think of no scenario where such a redirect would actually be useful, how often do you find yourself having to link to your userpage where your signature will not suffice? Three, U:PE has little actual bearing on your real username, I've no doubt there are hundreds if not thousands of other editors that could use that same redirect. Currently there are zero redirects from the mainspace to the userspace and I can't see any reason to allow yours. U:Pe was a textbook example of R2, and I will be very surprised if you can find another experienced editor who feels differently--Jac16888 Talk 17:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
We'll just have to agree to disagree, then. It does concern me a little that you feel I was wrong to remove the banner. Please read the banner: If this template does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please remove this notice. In my opinion, for which the banner obviously allows, my shortcut did not and does not meet the criteria. Opinions are like hearts – everybody has one. Joys! – Paine 
To quote Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it"--Jac16888 Talk 18:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Did you notice that there is no Contest this speedy deletion button? It appears that the banner is lacking and misleading. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 18:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Will all due respect, you've been here long enough to know how CSD works, I don't think a missing button is really an excuse.--Jac16888 Talk 18:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Right back at you, respectwise – but isn't it mostly new editors who get their redirects tagged as such? Who speaks for them? I'm just an old fuddy-duddy whose heart has attacked him a time or two. The fact remains that {{db-r2}} does not give editors the option that the policy page clearly states that it should. Without that option, the only choice left open to contesting editors, including us old farts, is to strip the tag from the page. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 18:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Better?--Jac16888 Talk 19:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. Joys! – Paine  19:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

A rescue[edit]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hello Paine. I'm not sure how this developed, but you can get some millage out of {{U}} for page links like U:Pe. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, John! All I can say is, it's a very different encyclopedia project than when I first registered. I suppose deletionists fulfill a necessary function, but to target users' shortcut redirects seems to me to be just a tad "overkill". There are so many "bad" articles, project pages, portal pages, templates and so forth, that to go around telling users that their harmless shortcuts aren't useful appears to be a bit tyrannical, don't you think? – Paine  19:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

R categorization question[edit]

What is the intended difference in the categorization parameter in templates like {{R to anchor}} which use |main category= and one's like {{R from incorrect name}} which use |all category=? Thanks.—John Cline (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, John – this is explained in detail in the {{Redirect template}} documentation. In a nutshell, rcats that use Redirect template can be set to either sort to only one category or sort to all categories by use of the category parameter. If only one cat is used, for example in {{R to anchor}}, which I see you changed from "all category=" to "main category=", the rcat is only usable in the main article namespace. So I would ask that you change that back to "all category=", which allows for the rcat to be used in all namespaces. If only used in one namespace, and the rcat tags a redirect in any other namespace, the redirect will not be sorted to the rcat's category, but will instead be sorted to CAT:WRONG. If you will please check that category, you will see the results of your {{R to anchor}} change. CAT:WRONG should be empty. You can empty it again by simply resetting R to anchor to "all category=Redirects to embedded anchors".
When I say "all namespaces", I mean all those listed at the Redirect template's documentation. There are excluded namespaces, which can easily be added if someone finds a use for them, e.g., Book:, Draft:, etc. – Paine  19:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, I didn't mean to save that with the change in place, I'll set it back to what it was.—John Cline (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Please review a tentative proposal[edit]

Paine, please review a proposal I am working on and let me know what you think. Please leave any reply there for now. Thanks.—John Cline (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

To John Cline: I'm still digesting this, John. First impression is that there are indeed some rcats that could stand some collapsed content. Also, that it might be good if the text on the left, "See category for more ←", could be indented, possibly by use of the {{pad}} template. The words sort of hang outside on the left and don't follow the form and flow of the other rcats, many of which would not need a collapsible function. Looks good so far, very nice. – Paine  02:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
PS. Also, the left-arrow above should be to the left of the text. PS added by – Paine 
I modified things as you suggested. More can be done. I also linked the main category which I had forgotten to do. Let me know your thoughts, and of certainty, if you want to tweak anything yourself, you should know that would be great. Be well.—John Cline (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:R from template shortcut[edit]

The "maroon" color looks like a broken red link (which has been clicked). I was going to remove the color, but I realized that you probably want it in some color? Christian75 (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Christian75is this better? I just "marooned" the phrase for emphasis, because editors still have a problem choosing the correct rcat to tag shortcuts. If the double-underline is superior to the maroon color, let me know and I'll update the live template. – Paine  21:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Columnar lists[edit]

Hi, re this edit - I see that you largely reverted my edit of a couple of weeks ago. There were two reasons that I made that edit: (i) accessibility - by using {{col-break}} we are splitting one contiguous list into several smaller lists - it's pretty much the same issue as WP:LISTGAP, but by avoiding explicit column end/begins we also avoid explicit list-end/begins; (ii) we don't know how wide the user's screen is, so it is not a good idea to force a particular number of columns. If the screen is too narrow (like a handheld device), they will be crushed; if the screen is wide, there will be a gap to the right of the last column. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Redrose64 – this has been fixed. I understand the concept, as I've been giving reflists a 30em width, but old habits die hard. I'll do better hereafter. Thank you for your gentle reminder! Joys! – Paine  18:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello Paine. When you have a chance, please look in on a related discussion in which you likely have needed insight. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

North of Scotland Cup - expert help[edit]

Thank you for your help. It is greatly appreciated.

Pleasure! – Paine 

Incorrect names[edit]

Hello Paine. I'm sure you would see, but want to expedite that you know that I added __NOINDEX__ to {{R from incorrect name}}. I saw a need to use the magic word and this seemed the best rcat to use it with. Your ideas are appreciated. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 09:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Another thought just occurred to me as I was updating the documentation. It almost seems that this category should not have the print-worthy option. My rationale is that whatever reason gives it print-worthyness would also indicate another, more appropriate rcat. What are your thoughts in this regard as well. Thanks.—John Cline (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
To John Cline: Could you let me know what need you saw that prompted you to add the __NOINDEX__ directly to the template code? The only thing that does is to keep the redirects tagged with {{R from incorrect name}} from being found by search engines. That basically defeats the purpose, because those who search for a page but are only aware of the incorrect name will be lost. Those readers will not get to where they want to be because the name (incorrect) they type into the search field will not come up – they will not be able to find the correct name by searching for the bad name.
The printworthy option is for those times when the incorrect name for a target is also the correct name of someone or something else that may be notable at some point in the future and might have an article written about them (see also: {{R with possibilities}}). This is the same rationale as with {{R from misspelling}}. I'll explain this in the documentation when I have some more time. Joys! – Paine  06:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
PS. The reason I added the printworthy option can be found in this discussion. PS added by – Paine 
Thank you Paine. I have been back and forth in my mind regarding when it would be preferable to noindex a redirect. It would probably be better as a parameter that could be used, but not necessarily always used, and the default may in fact be better off than on. I won't quibble with any change you make to include not using the magic word at all. I may have over thought this, but my thoughts were: At first a user boldly moved a page, in good faith, from its wp:commonname, West Fertilizer Company explosion, to West Fertilizer Company disaster. I felt it needed discussion and reverted it back.
I also searched the new title and noticed many top hits were being generated from the redirect being indexed. Not only Wikipedia, but the many mirrors as well. Previously there were very few hits in that title and it seemed that most reliable sources were deliberate in not classifying it a disaster. I began to wonder if we should exercise restraint before essentially promoting a title that is known to be incorrect, perhaps even one with negative bias built in.
Although it isn't as easy linking to an article if the redirect isn't indexed, it's not entirely impossible, but assumes the one searching has a modicum of common sense, and would choose from the reformulated search suggestions at the bottom of the page. That may be overly optimistic. Other examples might include indexing Richard Jewell as "the 1996 Olympic bomber", Sunil Tripathi as "the Boston Marathon bomber" or Paul Kevin Curtis as the 2013 ricin attacker. I'm not entirely certain what our responsibilities are here, but I feel we have some. Thanks for discussing this with me and helping achieve the best end. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 07:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
No problemo, John, I wish I could help more; however, my health issues keep me away from some of it. BTW, here is a discussion you might find interesting; it's about a proposed rcat. Also, you've probably already noticed WikiProject Redirect, and I cordially invite you to join all the rest of us "unsung heroes" by adding your sig to the member list. Joys! – Paine  14:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Template: Distinguish[edit]

I noticed that you changed the wording. However, it is stated in the close of the TfD that the template be left as-is. Would you please change the wording back first and start discussion later on?Forbidden User (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Forbidden User – Before I give you an answer, perhaps there are some things we can both consider together? I noted that you and I were of one mind during the Tfd; we both felt the template should be kept and we both saw the undesirable outcome of merging {{Distinguish}} with {{Distinguish2}}. Anyone who actually reads the documentation can see that the two templates have different functions, so we both realized that the continuing need for the Distinguish template is very real.
Next, please also take under consideration that I have had the improvement of these templates, Distinguish, Distinguish2, {{Redirect-distinguish}} and {{Redirect-distinguish2}}, on my to-do list for quite a while. This is not because I personally feel that there is something wrong with the word "confused"; it is only because the names of the templates were not consistent with their content. When I first encountered template Distinguish, my beginning thought was 'Why doesn't the template use its name in its content?' Yes, I was rather lax in making a change, and my only excuse is that other areas of Wikipedia pulled me away from these templates. The Tfd pulled me back, and I felt that it was "high time" for a positive improvement in them.
Lastly, the Distinguish template is a highly visible and much used template, so when any modification is made there are "dominoes falling" for quite some time. That is to say that such changes can prove to be quite a drain on Wikipedia's server as it works to make the changes to each and every page that transcludes the template. Multiply that effect times at least 2 when the other 3 templates are also modified.
May I ask, is there another wording that you would like to have considered? Do you strongly object to the wording that is now used in the template? Under any other circumstances I would be glad to return the templates to status quo pending the outcome of an RfC; however, my last consideration above gives me pause. If the present wording is not too objectionable to you, then perhaps it might be better to open an RfC to see if other editors want a different wording or if they are okay with the present wording.
So I would certainly attend an RfC if you begin one, and if a consensus arises to change the wording back to status quo, then I will be both compelled and happy to oblige. Thank you for coming to my talk page to discuss this and also for caring about this situation and about Wikipedia. – Paine  09:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Certainly, I myself do not hate the current wording that much. I put that request because it is stated in the TfD outcome that the template be kept as-is. The only thing I can't accept is change-before-discussion. Of course we should be bold, but not when a consensus against it has just been reached. Opening a TfD regarding the wording to gain the required consensus for the change is prerequisite to me, and that is why I wish to have it reverted first to respect consensus.
I can totally understand why you made the change (as I saw people talking about the BRD cycle, which you certainly follow), and I appreciate your courtesy and civility when facing my request. However, your change was made before the TfD close, whose outcome is against your change. If we follow the BRD cycle, then in discussion part the change is rejected, sadly. Perhaps WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY or WP:IAR applies here, but that should not be judged by only a few editors. I'm not putting on the request based on procedural error, there is none - you made the edit before discussion. I hope you may consider these as well. I will respect it if you reject the request - it's up to you.Forbidden User (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Oops, it looks like someone has had it done. You should raise a TfD - though probably some time later. Don't be discouraged!Forbidden User (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your encouragement, Forbidden User! Rather than clutter up articles with yet another Tfd notice, I would prefer to perhaps get fresh opinions from less-involved editors by use of the RfC process. So I've opened a request here. Joys! – Paine  17:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
PS. I should also note that, after you opened the edit request and as the one who had made the wording mod, I felt that by that time I was too involved to just come right out with a Not done. That is why I only left a comment to give another, "non-involved" template editor the decision to make the edit or not. PS added by – Paine 
It should also be noted just fyi that, when I made the change I was not being bold, I was just being an editor who had this change on my to-do list for a long time. I disagree that there was consensus against the wording change; I am very careful about such things. As Codename Lisa pointed out, the Tfd was about deleting Template:Distinguish, not about changing its content, so such side discussions should not be counted as "consensus" or "non-consensus". There was no "official" consensus for or against the wording modification.
Also, I did not make the change before the Tfd closed. The admin had closed the Tfd with the result stated as decision pending. So at the time I made the change, the Tfd was officially closed. The closing admin then changed the closing result to keep template, and at the end of the new closing statement made the further additional comment for the template to remain "as-is". This was a rather non-standard closure on the admin's part, but no big deal. It's just that the second closing statement came after I had modified the template's wording, so the "as-is" part had not yet been made. For confirmation of what I have said, please see this page. – Paine  20:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I saw - you made a change, and afterwards the closing said it is to be kept as-is, so I posted the request to enforce it. Well, for the RfC, you need to work hard on inviting editors while avoiding WP:Canvassing. So, good luck!Forbidden User (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Just to add, are TfDs only for deletion?Forbidden User (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
You're probably already aware, Forbidden User, that getting other editors involved is fairly easy in this case. The RfC template controls a bot that automatically and randomly invites editors who are signed up to be notified, plus there were a lot of participants in the Tfd and many will probably be closely watching {{Distinguish}} and its talk page.
It's my understanding that Tfd means "Templates for discussion". At one time not so long ago, the "d" stood for deletion and the templates were pretty much nominated only for that. Presently however, editors use the Tfd for deletion, merges, whatever major template mods they feel may be needed and that might be controversial. A lot of people watch the Tfd, so it's a good place to get more opinions, if desired. Hope this helps! – Paine  10:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Of course it helps! Thanks.Forbidden User (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Pleasure! – Paine  10:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: R with possibilities/doc[edit]

The irony with all these "R ..." redirect templates is that we just about lost them about 5 years ago because a lot of people didn't understand how they worked (mainly due to the MediaWiki bug that prevented the display of text on redirect pages). I wrote a short summary about {{R from other capitalisation}} and the MediaWiki bug in a subpage in my userspace here. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Tothwolf! (Just peekin' in from our vacation.) I do appreciate the irony. It took quite a while to get bug 14323 fixed, which was a pleasant surprise when it finally happened earlier this year. Onward and wolfward! Joys! – Paine  21:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)