User talk:Paine Ellsworth

      'BE a member of the Wikipedia family!'

'Wikipedia is a community effort of staggering proportions!'

'to help us keep our minds sharp!'

'PHILOSOPHIE!'

Just registered?

Learn quickly how to travel through the Wikipedia project!

---

Discussions and notifications...collapsed → (click [show] to see) →

Santiago Bernabéu I don't see a consensus to move here. Since the comments by me and JHunterJ, there have been no further !votes or responses by the supporters. Why not run the proposed experiment to collect some hard data on primary usage? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC) Hi King of Hearts, and thank you for coming to my talk page! In that RM, I saw 3 support rationales (including the nom's) based on the COMMONNAME policy and only one oppose rationale (yours). Your argument was sound but not policy-based. So the hatnote I just placed near the top of the Santiago Bernabéu article should suffice. It seemed to me like a clear consensus to rename. Just to be careful, I ran the page views analysis to find that the stadium‍:‍person ratio was presently between 3:1 and 4:1. So it seems pretty clear that the consensus in the discussion was correct to want the pages renamed. Would you have preferred the stadium article to ultimately be renamed to "Santiago Bernabéu" instead? (I thought the name of that stadium included the proper noun "Stadium" as in "Estadio Santiago Bernabéu". Isn't that correct?) Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  08:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC) (talk page stalker) I concur with King of ♥. The argument that the person is primary over the much more well-known stadium was not well presented, and there's no consensus for that outcome. Reverting the move and running the "experiment" suggested by JHunterJ seems like the best way forward. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC) Hi Amakuru, and here I thought the page views and the local consensus covered it. There is no primary topic per the page views, and the base name belongs to the person as their COMMONNAME. I see no harm in creating the redirects and running the experiment. If the stadium turns out to be the PTOPIC, then we can revisit the RM. No need to revert the page moves at this time, in my humble opinion. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  08:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC) This discussion has been transferred to Talk:Santiago Bernabéu#Post move for further discussion. Please continue there. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  09:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Angel episode redirects to lists A tag has been placed on Category:Angel episode redirects to lists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 18:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC) Hi, Liz, good to hear from you again.! Yes, those redirects are now sent to populate Category:Angel (TV series) episode redirects to lists, so no contest. Best to you! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  19:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC) Template:R from noun listed at Redirects for discussion An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:R from noun. Since you had some involvement with the Template:R from noun redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Geolodus (talk) 08:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC) Thank you very much, Geolodus, for this notification, and for the category one below, as well! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  13:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC) Category:Redirects from nouns listed at Redirects for discussion An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Category:Redirects from nouns. Since you had some involvement with the Category:Redirects from nouns redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Geolodus (talk) 08:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC) WP:LISTRCAT Hey Paine! Hope all is well. Any who, if you have some time, you may want to check out the section which WP:LISTRCAT redirects to, the aforementioned shortcut being a redirect I just created. The section seems a bit vague, but I believe that me undoing myself here is in compliance with that section, but I'm not sure. (In the example I provided, I removed the redirect from Category:2000 American television episodes since per WP:LISTRCAT, it seems that for redirects, any category that is neither a "redirect category" nor an in-universe category [in regards to fictional works] should not be used on redirects.) I figure you may be able to make more sense out of that than I can at the present moment. Cheers! Steel1943 (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC) Hey Steel1943! Been thinking about this, and thank you for bringing it to my attention. I see down the page that, when appropriate, it's okay to use article categories on redirects, so this needs more thought as to what the section at WP:LISTRCAT is trying to accomplish. Let me massage it a bit more. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  02:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC) To editor Steel1943: it takes a bit of re-reading, and I'm not real certain how to make WP:LISTRCAT clearer. Sounds like you did the right thing, though. And have you seen the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 18#Category:Middle-earth horses? That cat is one of the examples used at WP:LISTRCAT. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  16:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC) That's kind of what I was thinking too. What an odd passage ... with an indeterminate ability to be improved ... Steel1943 (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC) Hurricane Erick Hey there! Can you please move Hurricane Erick back to Hurricane Erick (2013) since this year's Erick has also intensified into a hurricane which makes the former no longer a primary topic. Thanks. CycloneYoris talk! 03:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC) Hey there, CycloneYoris! Looks as though that page has been moved by another editor. Best to you! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  17:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC) Yeah, I just noticed. But thanks anyway. CycloneYoris talk! 22:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC) Pleasure! Paine   The Signpost: 31 July 2019 News and notes: Wikimedia grants less accessible for travel, equipment, meetups, and India In the media: Politics starts getting rough Discussion report: New proposals in aftermath of Fram ban Arbitration report: A month of reintegration Gallery: Classic panoramas from Heinrich Berann On the bright side: What's making you happy this month? Community view: Video based summaries of Wikipedia articles. How and why? News from the WMF: Designing ethically with AI: How Wikimedia can harness machine learning in a responsible and human-centered way Recent research: Most influential medical journals; detecting pages to protect Special report: Administrator cadre continues to contract Traffic report: World cups, presidential candidates, and stranger things In focus: The French Wikipedia is overtaking the German * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC) Viacom When you turned Viacom from a redirect into a DAB page, you may have overlooked WP:FIXDABLINKS. The change broke 2,086 links, which will have to be fixed manually. That is 19.8% of all the bad links to DAB pages as of 7 August 2019. Narky Blert (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC) To editor Narky Blert: actually, when I began dablinking that page with AWB a few hours ago, there were more than 5,000 links that needed disambiguation, so I'm on it boss! Please don't respond for awhile, because AWB makes me stop, log out, log into WP to read my talk page msgs and won't let me make edits until I do. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  09:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC) To editor Narky Blert: just completed the AWB and manual dabs of all articles, categories and file pages. Best to you! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  18:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Applause! 5000 is twice the size of the biggest problem I've seen. A trick I've used, is to work between User:DPL bot runs, or to disable the {{dab}} tag until what-links-in is clean or nearly so in order to stop DPL bot from noticing. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC) The largest I've done was around 14,000 minus the many User, etc. links. Thanks for giving me the clap!>) Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  18:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Wow, great work, thanks! 👏👏👏 — JFG talk 20:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Pleasure! Paine   Let us also take a moment to honour the high deeds of bd2412 who single-handedly corrected about 65,000 redirects during the New York Wars. — JFG talk 00:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC) Note that when you have a really large number of links to fix and don't want to be bothered with messages that interrupt AWB, you can move your talk page to a temporary title (e.g. User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Talk); editors looking to leave you a message will be redirected there, and probably won't even notice that it isn't your regular talk page title, and messages left will not disrupt your work flow. I would only caution that you have to be doubly careful that you don't make some mistake with AWB that has people trying to send you messages to stop what you're doing! bd2412 T 01:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC) Excellent! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  03:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC) In British English, no-one would thank you for giving them the clap... Narky Blert (talk) 06:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC) lol! hence the old-fashioned, Usenetish smiley-wink in my response above after the word "clap" → !>) Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  06:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC) Nomination for merging of Template:R category with possibilities Template:R category with possibilities has been nominated for merging with Template:R with possibilities. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC) Thank you very much, MJL, for this notification! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  00:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC) Of course! Though, it was sort of just WP:Twinkle being twinkle. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC) On the Talk:First Encirclement Campaign RM It will be a lot easier for me to repair what was there than to start over with the silly form again. Is it OK if I revert your close and do that? Dicklyon (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC) Oh, I see that's pretty much what you suggested. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC) To editor Dicklyon: yes, it won't take much to make it right. It looks like one word was added to the redirects' target titles several years ago. Wasn't sure if you would want to add that word to your request's target titles, too. So I had to leave it up to you. Sorry to make a bit more work for you, but more than a dozen of your requests landed in the "Malformed requests" section of WP:RM because the current titles were redirects. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  03:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC) Actually quite a pain trying to change each item in two places after the substing. I hope the bot handles it right. Dicklyon (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC) Me too. So far so good. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  03:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC) Rcats for multiple errors Hi Paine, I wanted to get your thoughts on how to apply Rcats to a redirect with multiple errors—say, spelling and capitalization errors on the same redirect. I've usually just slapped {{R unprintworthy}} on them and called it a day, though recently, I've tried documenting them all. You can see the latter approach at Bark The Polarbear. On one hand, it feels more useful than just saying "unprintworthy", but on the other, it feels wrong to put incorrect forms in the "correct" parameter (and if I put the correct form in that parameter, I'd be making multiple changes). Hope that made sense. What do you think? --BDD (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC) To editor BDD: Always have used the correct form in all cases, so as not to confuse other editors who come across the redirect. See your example for my rendition. And thank you for asking! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  09:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Great close

This one. Had my eye on it for some time - beat me to the punch! Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Steven Crossin! P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  00:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:General American English#Requested move 2 August 2019

I'm sorry, but may I ask how you came to the conclusion that six participants in support (counting the proposer) and six opposing constituted a consensus to move? I'm aware polling is not a substitute for discussion, but then if you examine the statements, one in favor of the proposal (by Red Slash) argued that "General American English" is more WP:CONCISE than "General American", showing, taken at face value, inadequate understanding of the WP:CRITERIA; even the proposer had to ask for clarification, to which Red Slash has not responded.

The companies with "General American" in their names, which you mentioned in the closing statement, were first mentioned after a majority of the participants had already stated their positions, and I see no discussion of them after that 13 August comment. So can you point to where "the term's ambiguity has been established"? Nardog (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I would also like to add that there was equal or slightly greater tolerance toward "General American accent" than to "General American English" among those who participated. Even you said ["General American"] appears to be the undisputed common name for the subjects of accents and pronunciations of general American English, acknowledging that "General American" unambiguously refers to certain aspects of what can be called "general American English", even though the article is exclusively about those certain aspects. So moving it to "General American English" seems increasing ambiguity, not reducing it, which the proposal was all about. Nardog (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I do note that in Paine's closing remarks, they did note that they're open to an alternate title "while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. And if anyone objects to the closer's choice, they may make another move request immediately, hopefully leading the article to its final resting place.". I come across this sometimes in requested moves - I find a consensus to move the title away from the current title, but consensus isn't particularly clear on where to move it, so the closer picks from options presented, with no prejudice for going with one of the alternates. No comment on this RM in particular, except that I read through the discussion myself but Paine beat me to the close. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 01:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I fail to see that "consensus has rejected the former title". Nardog (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I noted that too ("no consensus for the title actually chosen" ... "may make another move request immediately"). Ideally, the closer should have summarised the cases for each of the contenders for the alternative title, and made a minimal statement for why one was chosen over others. I also think that immediate renominations are a bad idea. I don't think closers should be authorising immediate renominations when the notion of a follow-up RM was not in the discussion. Immediate renomiations are at the expense of the quality of the nomination statement. A considered new nomination needs a bit of breathing time for participants to digest what just happened. That said, I think "accent" is a subset of "English" and ""General American English" was what I supported, and was the only formal proposal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The subject of the article is the accent, exclusive of syntax, morphology, spelling, etc., which is why (in my view) "General American English" is more ambiguous than "General American", the established term for the accent. Nardog (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion for how to best approach these sort of things is to NOT go for an immediate (<24 hours) renomination, but to give it about a week minimum, think over "General American English" versus "General American accent", also "General American English accent", and then make a carefully crafted new nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for tps'ing! P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 04:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I hear you, Nardog, and there is no need to apologize, instead thank you for coming to my talk page. In defense of my closing comment, the first time I read the discussion I saw no general agreement across the board. Then I decided to read it again, because something didn't seem quite right. While there was an obvious lack of agreement about what new name to use, my second reading found that 1) supporters' rationales were significantly stronger generally than opposers', and 2) responses of supporters to opposers (generally) were very effective rebuttals in my humble opinion. So as I began to see a definite need to do something with the page title, the result was my closing statement.

Red Slash is not the first to conflate CONCISE and PRECISE, I've been known to confuse those myself sometimes. The companies' names caught my eye early on, which is why I mentioned them. Just like the Mississippi River is often just called "the Mississippi", any one of those companies could be called just "General American", which sealed the title's ambiguity for me. Please keep in mind that I consider the additional "English" in the title to be nothing more than a natural disambiguator, and I disagree with Sangdeboeuf's edits to the lead. Like, say, Mercury (planet), the lead sentence does not begin "Mercury (planet) is the smallest and...". There was no need to alter the lead sentence of the GA article, or I would have done so. "English" only qualifies the GA title and is an unnecessary adjunct to the very beginning of the lead sentence.

Pardon the interruption, but it was not a conflation; I actually meant what I said (though I'm known to make mistakes!). The two-word title does not convey enough information to describe the topic and therefore fails not WP:PRECISE but WP:CONCISE (read the first sentence). Red Slash 18:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The "General American accent" suggestion, while a contender for the title, was rejected for the reasons you set forth in the discussion. "I find 'General American accent' redundant, defying the 'conciseness' criterion." So if a choice had to be made, "English" was better than "accent" as a qualifier. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 02:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you on the lead sentence. Per MoS, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence if possible, and if it can be accommodated in a natural way. The reason Mercury (planet) isn't in the lead sentence of that article is because it isn't a natural use of English. As you stated in your closing comment (thank you for that), General American English is in common usage according to reliable sources, so including it in the lead adds information that will be useful for readers. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I see the sense in what you say and did, just don't see the actual need to include "English" in the first words of the lead sentence, since it was included later in the sentence in the American English link. Not a big deal, though. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 03:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I meant sorry in this sense because I was in disbelief. You found arguments on one side stronger, fine, but when the !votes are split precisely in half, that seems like good reason to !vote yourself or relist, not to close in favor of that side.

The Mississippi River is not an appropriate comparison because there is no other thing known simply as "General American" that has an article on this site. The companies are only partial matches, so there is no need for a natural disambiguator in the first place.

I said "General American accent" would at least make more sense than the proposed name (emphasis added). I find "General American English" more ambiguous than "General American" or "General American accent", defying Precision, and it also defies Conciseness when the article only discusses the accent.

Anyway, I take your response as an indication of no intention to revise the outcome, so I'm filing for a move review: Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 August#General American English. Nardog (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the company names are not ptm's any more than "Mississippi River" is a ptm on the Mississippi (disambiguation) page. They can all be referred to as just "General American" in the same manner as the river can be referred to as just "the Mississippi". And nobody has asked me to revise the outcome, but I guess it's too late now. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 04:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

So you think a hatnote should be added? Nardog (talk) 05:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd have to look at it more closely; however, my shoot-from-the-hip thought is to create a dab page at the "General American" title. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 05:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nardog: if the article truly only discusses the accent, then it doesn't actually reflect the sources and should be amended. I note that three sources cited just in the lead section discuss General American (English) as a dialect, whether genuine or specious (Kövecses 2000, Labov et al. 2006, Van Riper 1973/2014). More are given on the talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

To editor Nardog: my conclusion, as I said, was based upon the strength of the supporters' args and rebuttals being greater enough than opposers' to be deemed a consensus to move away from the previous title; however, that greater strength was not enough to form a consensus for the nom's suggested title, that is, the arguments of opposers were strong enough to preclude a clear consensus for the suggested title. That choice of title was mine alone, which is why I had to invoke the stipulation that a new RM could be started at any time as long as the new suggested title is different from the previous title. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 19:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Spectacular close

Fantastic, bang-up job, and I say that regardless of which side I'd supported. It is a closer's job to assess the arguments. (As an aside, yes, I meant WP:CONCISE, because article titles are supposed to be concise, not just "short". I'll quote: "The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area." I could've elaborated more in my comment in the discussion, I guess, but I thought that linking a policy meant it was pretty obvious that I was referring to the policy.) Red Slash 18:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Red Slash! Hope you'll forgive me for doubting you. Sometimes there's a tradeoff between concision and precision, and sometimes... well, sometimes they are one and the same thing, aren't they. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 19:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

• News and notes: Documenting Wikimania and our beginnings

• In focus: Ryan Merkley joins WMF as Chief of Staff

• In the media: Many layers of fake news: Fake fiction and fake news vandalism

• Discussion report: Meta proposals on partial bans and IP users

• Traffic report: Once upon a time in Greenland with Boris and cornflakes

• Op-Ed: We couldn't have told you this, but Wikipedia was censored

• Opinion: The Curious Case of Croatian Wikipedia

• Community view: Chinese Wikipedia and the battle against extradition from Hong Kong

• News from the WMF: Meet Emna Mizouni, the newly minted 2019 Wikimedian of the Year

• Recent research: Special issue on gender gap and gender bias research

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

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Saved book

Hi, can I ask if you were aware of this discussion/decision to suppress the template while we were discussing the update to it? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

No, Steelpillow, I was not aware of that decision. What can I do to help? P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 23:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The closure decision has now been reverted by the closer (at my request). You might like to add your contribution to the restored discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that link! I'll look things over and see what I can do. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 14:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Paine Ellsworth,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 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.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion

• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
• Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

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, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

• From the editors: Where do we go from here?

• Special report: Post-Framgate wrapup

• In the media: A net loss: Wikipedia attacked, closing off Russia? welcoming back Turkey?

• Traffic report: Varied and intriguing entries, less Luck, and some retreads

• News from the WMF: How the Wikimedia Foundation is making efforts to go green

• Recent research: Wikipedia's role in assessing credibility of news sources; using wikis against procrastination; OpenSym 2019 report

• Gallery: Finding freely licensed photo collections

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

• In focus: Wikidata & Wikibase for national libraries: the inaugural meeting

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

See this discussion

Per your question in the now-closed RM: Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#How_much_more_likely_is_"much_more_likely_than_any_other_single_topic"?. --В²C ☎ 18:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

To editor В²C: thank you for this pointer! Interesting conversation with several esteemed people attending. I haven't participated because, in a discussion like that, we are all just a "lone voice in the wilderness" (plus I've been very busy offline :>). Truth is, I've always liked the idea of a people being the PTOPIC over their language – in any case – so I wouldn't dream of contesting that RM's outcome any further. There will always be these inconsistencies on Wikipedia. Even though our reliance on local consensuses leads to inconsistencies, there is no way we will ever come to a community consensus on any issue that resembles the question "How high is 'up'?" P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 00:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Editing News #2 – Mobile editing and talk pages – October 2019

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

Inside this newsletter, the Editing team talks about their work on the mobile visual editor, on the new talk pages project, and at Wikimania 2019.

Help

What talk page interactions do you remember? Is it a story about how someone helped you to learn something new? Is it a story about how someone helped you get involved in a group? Something else? Whatever your story is, we want to hear it!

Please tell us a story about how you used a talk page. Please share a link to a memorable discussion, or describe it on the talk page for this project. The team would value your examples. These examples will help everyone develop a shared understanding of what this project should support and encourage.

Talk Pages

The Talk Pages Consultation was a global consultation to define better tools for wiki communication. From February through June 2019, more than 500 volunteers on 20 wikis, across 15 languages and multiple projects, came together with members of the Foundation to create a product direction for a set of discussion tools. The Phase 2 Report of the Talk Page Consultation was published in August. It summarizes the product direction the team has started to work on, which you can read more about here: Talk Page Project project page.

The team needs and wants your help at this early stage. They are starting to develop the first idea. Please add your name to the "Getting involved" section of the project page, if you would like to hear about opportunities to participate.

Mobile visual editor

The Editing team is trying to make it simpler to edit on mobile devices. The team is changing the visual editor on mobile. If you have something to say about editing on a mobile device, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.

Edit Cards

What happens when you click on a link. The new Edit Card is bigger and has more options for editing links.

• On 3 September, the Editing team released version 3 of Edit Cards. Anyone could use the new version in the mobile visual editor.
• There is an updated design on the Edit Card for adding and modifying links. There is also a new, combined workflow for editing a link's display text and target.
• Feedback: You can try the new Edit Cards by opening the mobile visual editor on a smartphone. Please post your feedback on the Edit cards talk page.

Toolbar

The editing toolbar is changing in the mobile visual editor. The old system had two different toolbars. Now, all the buttons are together. Tell the team what you think about the new toolbar.

• In September, the Editing team updated the mobile visual editor's editing toolbar. Anyone could see these changes in the mobile visual editor.
  • One toolbar: All of the editing tools are located in one toolbar. Previously, the toolbar changed when you clicked on different things.
  • New navigation: The buttons for moving forward and backward in the edit flow have changed.
  • Seamless switching: an improved workflow for switching between the visual and wikitext modes.
• Feedback: You can try the refreshed toolbar by opening the mobile VisualEditor on a smartphone. Please post your feedback on the Toolbar feedback talk page.

Wikimania

The Editing Team attended Wikimania 2019 in Sweden. They led a session on the mobile visual editor and a session on the new talk pages project. They tested two new features in the mobile visual editor with contributors. You can read more about what the team did and learned in the team's report on Wikimania 2019.

Looking ahead

• Talk Pages Project: The team is thinking about the first set of proposed changes. The team will be working with a few communities to pilot those changes. The best way to stay informed is by adding your username to the list on the project page: Getting involved.
• Testing the mobile visual editor as the default: The Editing team plans to post results before the end of the calendar year. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: VisualEditor as mobile default project page.
• Measuring the impact of Edit Cards: The Editing team hopes to share results in November. This study asks whether the project helped editors add links and citations. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: Edit Cards project page.

– PPelberg (WMF) (talk) & Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Women of Krusha e Madhe

Hello, I'd be interested to hear what you think of this behaviour , whitewashing an RfD as if it never happened. Regards. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

The move was performed in violation of Wikipedia policies: there was no discussion at all yet. If you bend over to Serbian nationalists, I do not give a fuck for the article, I have more interesting things to do that to engage in wikiBalkan wars. Have a nice day. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Please help me out here. The page was not moved, it was merged and redirected following an AfD discussion. The edit history is still intact and preserved. Please be specific about which policies have been violated. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 21:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Move review for Ranks in the Boy Scouts of America

An editor has asked for a Move review of Ranks in the Boy Scouts of America. 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. --evrik ^(talk) 21:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Rojava

Rojava is not the same as "North and East Syria" and this article is about North and East Syria not Rojava which means West of Kurdistan. The commonly used name in the media is North and East Syria, Rojava is totally unrelated to this. The article is misleading and sources there are original research.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

To editor SharabSalam: not an expert, so I am happy to take your word for that. Please keep in mind that I did not close the request at Talk:Rojava#Requested move 14 October 2019, I only relisted it on 22 October 2019. If you would like to discuss this with the closer, you are welcome to do so on their talk page. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 15:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought you closed the request. Sorry.-SharabSalam (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

• In the media: How to use or abuse Wikipedia for fun or profit

• Special report: “Catch and Kill” on Wikipedia: Paid editing and the suppression of material on alleged sexual abuse

• In focus: The BBC looks at Chinese government editing

• Interview: Carl Miller on Wikipedia Wars

• Community view: Observations from the mainland

• Arbitration report: October actions

• Traffic report: Wrestling with a couple of teenagers, a Nobelist, and a lot of jokers

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Broadcast

• Recent research: Research at Wikimania 2019: More communication doesn't make editors more productive; Tor users doing good work; harmful content rare on English Wikipedia

• Essay: Wikipedia is in the real world

• News from the WMF: Welcome to Wikipedia! Here's what we're doing to help you stick around

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

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 1 October 2019

Hiya can you explain your rationale for closing the move discussion as no consensus on Autonomous social center? I'm not seeing it. Thanks. Mujinga (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

To editor Mujinga: happy to oblige. As nominator, your support for the page move included a sound nomination statement and rationale. After reading the page creator's detailed rationale, I was unable to determine myself which of the two synonymous terms, "autonomous" and "self-managed", could be considered the common name for this type of center. Discounting the final oppose rationale as only a reminder that "center" should be chosen over "centre", I was led to the no-consensus decision (instead of "not moved", which would mean that the page should not be renamed for a much longer period). After checking the logs to find that "Autonomous social center" has been the stable page title since the article's creation in 2017, "no consensus" meant that the present title should remain in place for now. Hope this helps! P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 17:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Paine Ellsworth,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 808 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

• It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
• It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

• Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
• Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history at Template:Indo-Aryan languages shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. – Uanfala (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

To editor Uanfala: in more than ten years I have never taken an editor to a dispute resolution noticeboard. With this action, I am very close to doing so and will read up on the process in case you force me to do so. I respectfully ask that you immediately cease and desist your unfathomable efforts against consensus and against me. I consider this a personal attack and will take steps necessary to stop you if you don't stop yourself. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 21:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

To editor Uanfala: I've decided not to take this dispute to a noticeboard. I gave some thought to inviting some admins to this section of my talk page, the ones that have already been involved in these discussions and a few more admins I know. And if any one of those admins should decide that either you or me or both of us should be blocked from editing, then I would abide by that decision – and so would you. However, rather than all that, I've decided to step away from all this. Do as you please. If you ever revert one of my /doc page additions again, I won't contest it. Your edits against the consensus of this community will catch up to you at some point; however, you will never again hear from this editor on this issue. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 21:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I think it will definitely be a good idea to get other people's opinions here. If you go on moving template docs all across the board, it's likely you might run into similar situations again; so if there's any disagreement about the conditions under which this activity is of benefit, then it's better if these are sorted out first. – Uanfala (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you have another issue you'd like to discuss? This one has become both a no-brainer and a non-starter for me. Best to you! P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 23:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The issue I thought we'd been discussing so far is the use of separate doc pages for navboxes. The same considerations that recommend against them for the two specific templates also recommend against separate doc pages for most other navboxes as well. – Uanfala (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Visayans

Hi and thanks for closing that RM. I'm not sure about the recategorisation though: as far as I can see, Category:Visayans and Category:Visayas are for two separate things (compare Visayans and Visayas). – Uanfala (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

To editor Uanfala: trying to rename the categories to reflect that "Visayas" and "Visayans" refer to the geographical area, while the people and languages are "Bisaya" and "Bisayan" respectively. Is this not correct? P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 20:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about the people; even if it seems plausible it might be a good idea to double-check first. However, I was referring to moves like this one.

Also, is there a way to fix the close? It appears as though the move is still open. I could try to fix it myself, but as an involved party in the discussion I probably shouldn't be seen to be fiddling with the closure templates. – Uanfala (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, there's this: Talk:Visayans#Requested_move_7_November_2019. It doesn't look like the ethnic group is going to be renamed. – Uanfala (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

After I closed the RM and started checking, the article on the people was Bisaya people, so that and the closed RM are what I was working with. The example you gave just shows the people categorized within the geographical location. I won't make any more category moves until we see how Talk:Visayans#Requested move 7 November 2019 closes.

Usage of {{Requested move/end}} is a valid alternative for closing RMs. I've updated that template and am not the only closer who uses it. Nothing needs to be fixed. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 21:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh my bad, I just didn't see RMCD bot remove the notice from the article and I assumed something must be amiss (although, is that template meant to produce so much template code and output these parser functions when susbsted? As for the categories, the main problem as far as I can see is that a lot of biography articles have ended up removed from a previous category that was dedicated for biographies and placed directly under a very broad geography category. – Uanfala (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I think I fixed that, but let me know if I missed something. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 22:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

To editor Uanfala: also, I've unsubstituted the closure template and it seems to work okay. I'll make some checks to see if substitution is necessary. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 22:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

To editor Uanfala: as you may have seen, I had to revert my edit and re-subst the {{Requested move/end}} template. It appears to require substitution for bot and archiving purposes. So I tweaked it and by using "safesubst", I was able to decrease the amount of code substantially. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 06:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

UFC Fight Night: Zabit vs. Kattar

Hi Paine!

I wanted to drop you a message regarding the bold/italics for UFC event names (and alternate names). Of the 504 events with links in the 'Past Events' section, 502 follow the bold/italics convention. The two that do not are UFC Fight Night: Zabit vs. Kattar and UFC on ESPN: dos Anjos vs. Edwards.

If you are going to change the style for UFC Fight Night: Zabit vs. Kattar, I think it's probably best if you also change the other 502 to match. Thanks!

To editor Maxwell vs Euler: have no problem with making those changes. Before I do, I would like to know what justifies such an apparent and blatant abuse of our MOS style guideline. I can find nothing myself that tells us that MOS:ITALICS shouldn't be followed. Is there any good reason? P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 06:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Paine!

I'm a bit confused!

I'm not sure if you mean to actually ask me those two questions or if they're rhetorical and you are just venting your frustration... I haven't looked to see who wrote the titles in that way and I can't say what justifications they may or may not have had. If you are looking for answers to those queries, you can probably see who the original authors are in the history of each page, and open a discussion with those authors.

I have a feeling that you know a lot more about Wikipedia style convention than the authors who wrote the titles that way, though.

My contribution wasn't much; I just wrote a quick programming script to check all of the other titles for bold/italics and the 502/504 is what popped out, so I just changed one or two that I noticed were not the same as all of the others. You've brought the style guidelines to my attention, and I can see that using italics is not the correct way. My reason for reaching out, originally, was just to let you know what I had found, so you could take further action, if you saw fit.

-MvE