User talk:Paine Ellsworth

      'BE a member of the Wikipedia family!'

'Wikipedia is a community effort of staggering proportions!'

The Closer: non-admin revealings

I am not an administrator. Wouldn't mind being one, although don't really want to be. Wouldn't mind being an admin because I deeply respect the community vetting that shows the ultimate trust of an editor. Don't really want to be because I guess I'm just too old to survive that sometimes grueling community vetting. So I shall remain a non-admin caught between two worlds... the world of the admins, which means I'm expected not to close controversial discussions (which I sometimes do, sometimes don't), and the world of less experienced editors who don't want me to close the "easy" discussions (which I also sometimes do, sometimes don't), and save those for them. If it's in the backlog, then it's fair game! Anyway, if you have come to ask about one of my RfC, RM, MRV or other discussion closures, you are more than welcome! I am prone to change a decision when I'm asked to do so. Please be explicit about your intentions and do not beat around the bush. Thank you for your deeply respected concerns!

'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 open them, then click the section title in the Table of Contents above →

The following are closed discussions. Please do not modify them. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. Bold in the opening of an animal article Hi, I personally agree with this edit. However, Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals#Article content says not to do this (although it's ok for plant articles). Peter coxhead (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC) I wonder why the WikiProject insists on that? There is usually a redirect at the scientific name, which means that science-inclined readers might very well type the Genus species name into a search engine, and on Wikipedia that often takes them to the common name article. Following the principle of least astonishment for readers, redirect titles really should be in boldtype so readers will more easily and readily know why they landed on a title they did not type into the search engine. That's the way I've been doing this for many years, and I think that paragraph on the WikiProject page does not follow the least astonishment principle. Thank you, Peter, for letting me know! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 23:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC) Well, I agree with you entirely. I think the reason is that editors dislike the continuous bold in something like "redback spider (Latrodectus hasseltii)" or "Latrodectus hasseltii (redback spider)", believing that it doesn't make it clear that there are two names. However, this was already the policy when I started editing spider articles (mostly I stick to plants). So I usually write something like "redback spider, scientific name Latrodectus hasseltii" or "Latrodectus hasseltii, known as the redback spider". It's very rare that anyone changes this to the WP:ANIMALS preferred format. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Sorry about that Hey sorry about undoing your edit on the Labyrinth EP page, I completely forgot I was on the album page and not the single page. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC) It's all good, Carlobunnie, and thank you for coming to my talk page! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 00:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – July 2020 News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020). Administrator changes Malcolmxl5 John • TheCoffee • Tim! Creffett → GeneralNotability DeltaQuad → AmandaNP CheckUser changes Bbb23 Interface administrator changes TonyBallioni Guideline and policy news A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion. Technical news Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA). Arbitration Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community. The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles. Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Government of Victoria RM Hey there! I saw that you closed the RM for Government of Victoria as having no consensus, but as per the previous comment from an uninvolved editor, there was consensus to move the article - the only thing that needed discussing was exacts of the target title (capitalisation of "State Government"), which was actually agreed on. I don't really want to go down the rabbit hole that is move reviews, but I feel as though this was possibly overlooked, especially considering that there was an already declared consensus for moving the article, and there was unanimous support after that for the target title (Victoria State Governent). ItsPugle (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Hey there, ItsPugle! I just looked again, and unfortunately, I still see no real agreement about renaming the page. Even though you and others responded well to opposers and to those who disagreed with the proper noun phrase idea, you didn't seem to change their minds, that is, no one actually changed their mind about either leaving the title as is or moving it to a title different from the one you requested. I'm sorry but I definitely did not see "unanimous support" for any title that was discussed. So the choices, based upon the discussion and timestamps are twofold... 1) leave things as they are, look for ways to strengthen your arguments and try again in a few months to request a page move, or 2) even though the RM is about a month old and was relisted once about three weeks ago, the discussion can be relisted once more to see if a consensus can be garnered after another week. Which way do you want to go? Leave it as is? or reopen? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 22:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC) I think, if it's okay, that relisting it might be worthwhile. I'll ping all those who have engaged with it to try and stimulate some more discussion, too. Oh, and when I mean unanimious support, I mean my little comment underneath ProcrastinatingReader's (which really was only two people, so not quite unanimous in the grand scheme!). The last opposition to the RM was also a bit funky, since they said some factually incorrect things - but they didn't get back to me so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ItsPugle (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC) To editor ItsPugle: the closure has been overturned and the request has been relisted. Thank you for coming to my talk page! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 18:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Thanks for being such a great wikipedian! <3 ItsPugle (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Editing news 2020 #3 On 16 March 2020, the 50 millionth edit was made using the visual editor on desktop. Seven years ago this week, the Editing team made the visual editor available by default to all logged-in editors using the desktop site at the English Wikipedia. Here's what happened since its introduction: The 50 millionth edit using the visual editor on desktop was made this year. More than 10 million edits have been made here at the English Wikipedia. More than 2 million new articles have been created in the visual editor. More than 600,000 of these new articles were created during 2019. Almost 5 million edits on the mobile site have been made with the visual editor. Most of these edits have been made since the Editing team started improving the mobile visual editor in 2018. The proportion of all edits made using the visual editor has been increasing every year. Editors have made more than 7 million edits in the 2017 wikitext editor, including starting 600,000 new articles in it. The 2017 wikitext editor is VisualEditor's built-in wikitext mode. You can enable it in your preferences. On 17 November 2019, the first edit from outer space was made in the mobile visual editor. In 2019, 35% of the edits by newcomers, and half of their first edits, were made using the visual editor. This percentage has been increasing every year since the tool became available. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Loath *Reopen and relist. <uninvolved> Going out on a limb here, because it appears to me that the closer did not correctly assess the validity of the oppose rationales. "Clearly the primary topic"? Page views say no, as well as long-term significance says no. So apologies to the closer, and believe me I'm never happy with an editor who fails to discuss these first with the closer, but this looks like an "Oh what the heck, five opposes so 'not moved' just MUST be the right way to go," kind of non-closure. There is no PTOPIC here, so the dab page is needed and should be at the base name. (imho) P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 05:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC) I think a "reopen" is inappropriate, and even before the close, a "relist" would have been inappropriate. to begin with, the RM rationale is poor, below standard. "... I want to hear from other contributors. I don't really understand ..." is not a considered proposal for consensus decision making, it should have been a talk page post. Second, the editor who made a comment motivating the RM gave a very strong negative !vote. Third, the discussion already had four respondents in SNOW opposition. I am normally a strong proponent of good explanations for closes, but not in the case of unanimous opposition. It is not OK for the nominator to demand answers to their comments just because they initiated a formal RM process. There is room for further discussion, but the case does not look to be there that anything needs urgent fixing, and it looks like there is no better outcome than the status quo sitting in the wings. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict) You know how loath I am to disagree with you, SmokeyJoe; however, in this case all of the oppose rationales were either specific about the topic presently at the base name as the primary topic, non-specific at all in terms as to why they opposed, or they merely agreed with the above opposers. So they all should have been thrown out. The page should have been renamed with a qualifier and the dab page moved to the base name. Poor closure! Let's say I had closed the RM, discounted the opposes and moved the pages. Now let's say one of the opposers opened an MRV against my closure. Wikipedia is not a democracy! Would you have BADNAC'd my close? or would you have seen through the poor oppose rationales and endorsed my close? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 06:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC) User:Paine Ellsworth, I hope "loath" is not really the right word. I actually enjoy disagreeing with you, because I see evidence that we both learn from the experience. The evidence in not to be found in answers given, but subsequent behaviours. I hope I don't upset you with bluntness; I could word things with more gentility, but if I did I would write a lot less. If the closer were to have thrown out the "oppose" !votes, and moved per a line of logic, I would be very quick with a knee-jerk "WP:Supervote". A thought-test of this is: if the closer were to make that !vote, would the "oppose" !voters reverse their !votes? In the above case, I do not believe it would be likely. I believe that a closer should take a very conservative role in respecting the prevailing discussion. If that discussion is misguided, the answer is to steer it better by participating. I think this is essential, not for the correct decision, but for the community to feel that they are respected in community consensus decision making. In these review forums, I deliberately resist looking though the mud of poor arguments to see the truth. Should my cry be "BADNAC" or "Supervote" or "Bad close"? I am not sure, but I like "BADNAC" for the excellent advice for NACers that can be found at WP:BADNAC. A BADNAC would not be a good close if it were performed by an admin. What's different is that admins seem to take being taken to DRV or MR much more seriously than NACers, and they don't seem to need to read the advice. Sometimes, admins make closes that look like arbitrary decisions, but when pushed, and it takes DRV or MR to do the pushing, they are able to justify themselves, where NACers sometimes don't even answer. Where to go from here? I suggest that if you really think there is a good justification to the move in the face of four firmly states oppose !votes, then, after a pause, you should launch a new RM with a better rationale. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC) It's all good, SmokeyJoe, it's all good. So you think that if as many as five editors oppose a page move, in which the only support is the editor who requested the move, and all five rationales go against community consensus (which they did), we should just coddle them and allow their poor judgement to stand? Apparently, judging by the other endorsers and the MRV closer, that's just what we should do. I've already considered opening a new RM, but with a firm not moved and a firmer MRV endorsement, it will be at least a year before there is any possibility of success. I was just being ironic, sarcastic me with the "loath" comment, so don't go getting all insecure on me (heh). It's all good my friend, all good! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 15:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC) Just coddle them? No. Firstly, I think the root cause of failure was the poor RM opening statement. Poor opening statements seem to invoke knee jerk opposition. When five people in a row are wrong, perhaps knee jerk groupthinking, then the answer is to speak up, not supervote. If it’s too late, as it was in this case as MR does not welcome new arguments, then I think there’s good applicable advice in WP:RENOM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC) I'm back/thanks for checking on me Hey, thanks for checking in on me (like a year and a half ago). Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner; I just really needed a complete break from my online communities for a while. I'm doing good now though. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC) To editor Jackmcbarn: that is so good to hear! and thank you beyond words for letting me know! Paine  20:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – August 2020 News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020). Administrator changes Red Phoenix Euryalus • SQL Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester Oversight changes GB fan Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos Guideline and policy news There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours). Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment. Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion. There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users. Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC) The Signpost: 2 August 2020 Special report: Wikipedia and the End of Open Collaboration? COI and paid editing: Some strange people edit Wikipedia for money News and notes: Abstract Wikipedia, a hoax, sex symbols, and a new admin In the media: Dog days gone bad Discussion report: Fox News, a flight of RfAs, and banning policy Featured content: Remembering Art, Valor, and Freedom Traffic report: Now for something completely different Gallery: Photos of threatened species from iNaturalist News from the WMF: New Chinese national security law in Hong Kong could limit the privacy of Wikipedia users Recent research: Receiving thanks increases retention, but not the time contributed to Wikipedia Essay: Not compatible with a collaborative project Obituaries: Hasteur and Brian McNeil In focus: WikiLoop DoubleCheck, reviewing edits made easy * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Requested move of Dylan Brady (producer) "6 months to a year" moratorium is pretty arbitrary, and certainly not meriting a procedural close. I have attended many RMs where an unsuccessful request was followed mere days later by a successful one. Schierbecker (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC) Waiting times are just a measure of success, that is, the longer one waits, the more likely the move request will succeed. When the decision is "no consensus", the suggested waiting time is 2 to 6 months, and when the decision is "moved" or "not moved", then the waiting time is 6 months to a year. Anything less and many editors consider it disruptive and a waste of time. There is nothing hard and fast about this kind of moratorium, so if you want to risk the disdain of other editors, then go ahead and reopen. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 03:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC) "Great ape" and "Great apes" redirects I know I still have much to learn about the definition of printability, as its practical application by other editors has not always been consistent. As I understand, Great ape and Great apes cannot both be printworthy even though they are redirects to scientific names, since they would not be given separate listings in a print encyclopedia. I noticed that the former was being categorized as both printworthy and unprintworthy, so I fixed it. The issue I have is with the choice of the plural title as (more) printworthy: It seems contrary to the spirit of WP:SINGULAR, especially the "Horse/Horses" example given within. I say "spirit" instead of "letter" because I know WP:SINGULAR is about article titles and does not aim to prescribe printability of redirects. To what extent does the guideline about singular titles extend to redirects? Are certain biological classifications treated specially? Also, why must the less-printworthy title be explicitly unprintworthy? Isn't this a rare case in which "printability unknown" could be acceptable? Alternatively, should there be a concept of multiple levels of printworthy, paralleling the distinction between unprintworthy {{R from miscapitalisation}} for which links "should be updated" and {{R from other capitalisation}} not necessarily so? Thanks for enlightening me... --SoledadKabocha (talk) 05:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC) To editor SoledadKabocha: printability/printworthiness often escapes us all, so none of us can expect to be right about it in every case. Having said that, I usually call printable a redirect that is actually mentioned in a hatnote, as is Great apes. So if the dab page had been left at Great ape (disambiguation) and "Great ape" was in the Hominidae hatnote instead of "Great apes", then "Great ape" would have been the printable redirect. Has nothing to do with plurals being printable and singulars not, or vice versa. The rest of your inquiry has to do with the final reason for printability. A redirect is printable if it belongs in a printed version of Wikipedia, and is unprintable if it does not belong. There is no in-between, no gray area that I can see. Unknown printability helps no one, so somebody should make the choice, sometimes based on only a "best guess" scenario. Most of the time, other capitalization is just as unprintworthy as miscapitalization, and there may be exceptions to both, I would think. Which of those "multiple levels of printworthy" would be expected to be used in a printed version and which would not? For several years now, I have honestly appreciated and revered your participation in redirect categorizing, so please don't misunderstand me when I say that printability can already be really complicated, and I see no good reason to make it even more complex. Thank you beyond words for asking! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 06:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC) I was grasping at straws in the last paragraph, as the comment was meant to suggest. I was not expecting to have made any logically valid excuse. I am aware that before replying, you removed one of the {{R mentioned in hatnote}} templates; my bad for not seeing myself that it was outdated. My original thought about multiple levels of printability was meant to parallel the "Appendix" namespace used on Wiktionary and some non-English Wikipedias. I was also toying with the idea of proposing WP1.0 to split the Redirect assessment class into multiple classes, even if just replicating the current definition of printability, but I realize that is neither relevant to this discussion nor has any chance of gaining consensus. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC) "Template:Malaysian name" listed at Redirects for discussion A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Malaysian name. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 10#Template:Malaysian name until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC) The Signpost: 30 August 2020 News and notes: The high road and the low road In the media: Storytelling large and small Featured content: Going for the goal Special report: Wikipedia's not so little sister is finding its own way Op-Ed: The longest-running hoax Traffic report: Heart, soul, umbrellas, and politics News from the WMF: Fourteen things we’ve learned by moving Polish Wikimedia conference online Recent research: Detecting spam, and pages to protect; non-anonymous editors signal their intelligence with high-quality articles Arbitration report: A slow couple of months From the archives: Wikipedia for promotional purposes? Obituaries: Marcus Sherman, Jerome West, and Pauline van Till * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2020 #4

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Reply tool

The number of comments posted with the Reply Tool from March through June 2020. People used the Reply Tool to post over 7,400 comments with the tool.

The Reply tool has been available as a Beta Feature at the Arabic, Dutch, French and Hungarian Wikipedias since 31 March 2020. The first analysis showed positive results.

• More than 300 editors used the Reply tool at these four Wikipedias. They posted more than 7,400 replies during the study period.
• Of the people who posted a comment with the Reply tool, about 70% of them used the tool multiple times. About 60% of them used it on multiple days.
• Comments from Wikipedia editors are positive. One said, أعتقد أن الأداة تقدم فائدة ملحوظة؛ فهي تختصر الوقت لتقديم رد بدلًا من التنقل بالفأرة إلى وصلة تعديل القسم أو الصفحة، التي تكون بعيدة عن التعليق الأخير في الغالب، ويصل المساهم لصندوق التعديل بسرعة باستخدام الأداة. ("I think the tool has a significant impact; it saves time to reply while the classic way is to move with a mouse to the Edit link to edit the section or the page which is generally far away from the comment. And the user reaches to the edit box so quickly to use the Reply tool.")[1]

The Editing team released the Reply tool as a Beta Feature at eight other Wikipedias in early August. Those Wikipedias are in the Chinese, Czech, Georgian, Serbian, Sorani Kurdish, Swedish, Catalan, and Korean languages. If you would like to use the Reply tool at your wiki, please tell User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF).

The Reply tool is still in active development. Per request from the Dutch Wikipedia and other editors, you will be able to customize the edit summary. (The default edit summary is "Reply".) A "ping" feature is available in the Reply tool's visual editing mode. This feature searches for usernames. Per request from the Arabic Wikipedia, each wiki will be able to set its own preferred symbol for pinging editors. Per request from editors at the Japanese and Hungarian Wikipedias, each wiki can define a preferred signature prefix in the page MediaWiki:Discussiontools-signature-prefix. For example, some languages omit spaces before signatures. Other communities want to add a dash or a non-breaking space.

New requirements for user signatures

• The new requirements for custom user signatures began on 6 July 2020. If you try to create a custom signature that does not meet the requirements, you will get an error message.
• Existing custom signatures that do not meet the new requirements will be unaffected temporarily. Eventually, all custom signatures will need to meet the new requirements. You can check your signature and see lists of active editors whose custom signatures need to be corrected. Volunteers have been contacting editors who need to change their custom signatures. If you need to change your custom signature, then please read the help page.

Next: New discussion tool

Next, the team will be working on a tool for quickly and easily starting a new discussion section to a talk page. To follow the development of this new tool, please put the New Discussion Tool project page on your watchlist.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse ping list

Hello Paine Ellsworth! I am compiling a list/directory of editors with subject-specific expertise at User:Usedtobecool/Tea intended to be used by regular hosts at the Teahouse, to ping editors to help answer queries that are about to get archived unanswered. I was wondering if you would be interested in being listed? I thought of you for questions about "editing templates" and complex "wiki markup" that regular hosts have trouble figuring out; should not occur more than a few times a year. If you are interested, please check the list out, and add yourself to any and all categories you would be able to help with. Because teahouse posts get archived within 3 days, the more editors listed, the better chance there would be of finding an editor actively editing at the time assistance is required. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for thinking of me, Usedtobecool! It would be a pleasure to help when I can. I have a lot on my plate right now, online and off, so there might be times when my availability is low. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 20:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Paine Ellsworth, I have added you accordingly. The intention is to make sure you don't get any pings except when your contribution history indicates you would be available. Hopefully, it will work as intended most of the time, and at the very least, at least a few posts that would otherwise go unanswered will be covered after the list becomes available. That no editor can always be available is the fundamental assumption; so I would not worry about it. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
• A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
• A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
• An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

See You When I Am Famous

Hi Paine Ellsworth -- I know you have a lot going on, so no rush to answer this. But I'm curious about your close at Talk:See You When I Am Famous. While I know the numbers (7 support, 4 oppose) are one of those borderline situations that could be a move or a no consensus if the !votes all use strong arguments, I personally found the oppose rationales extraordinarily weak and all relying on ignoring aspects of the guidelines they cited (obviously my bias is clear!). So I'd be curious which !votes you found held water, as it was somewhat of an unusual case of the oppose !votes each having different rationales. The list below is certainly my biased rewording, but would still appreciate your thoughts:

• The title is a stylism and therefore should not be used (even though the cited guideline in that !vote clearly states that when sources are clear in their use of a style it should be used, regardless of style)
• Sources are all too recent, so we should assume they will change in the future. Just because all sources use the proposed title, we cannot assume they meant to do so as they probably copied and pasted (this one was, quite frankly just silly)
• Sources are too low quality, so even though they are consistent we should ignore them, contrary to what the stylism guidelines say to do (is there any precedent for that? if sources are too low quality then the article should be deleted, otherwise I see no indication in our titling guidelines that we should ignore them).
• The repeated ! is technically the same as a name without any punctuation, so the shorter version is concise and therefore preferred even if though it is not commonly used in sources.

Appreciate your thoughts and time.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Be honest with you, Yaksar, I saw two relistings and at first was ready to call it a "rough consensus to rename"; however, the more I thought about it, the more it seemed that the existing sources indicated that it was just "too soon" to go with the 12 exclamation points. It was then that I knew that if I closed the RM as "moved", it would be construed as a supervote and a badnac. You did provide some strong arguments and rebuttals, so if you think it would be warranted, I would be happy to reopen it and relist a third time. At this point, it could go either way but it's iffy. I do think that if we wait two or three months, the sources and the args could be made even stronger during that period. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 19:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate the reply. I'm admittedly somewhat confused by the "too soon" argument -- it would be one thing if it was a proposal to move away from the title used in sources, but if we are arguing it is too soon to tell what the long term title would be, wouldn't the only alternative be to use the title based on current sourcing, vs. using the one not used in sourcing? It seems fairly WP:CRYSTALBALL to say that it's too soon to know what sources will say and that in the meantime we should remain at a title that would only be acceptable if sources change their approach in the future.

I'm also shocked you aren't an admin, you are one of those cases where I had just assumed (although all I had to do was read your page where you actually explain)! And I agree relisting won't necessarily be best because I don't want to come across as just shopping for a different closure, but I'd argue that, when limiting it to arguments based on what our guidelines and policy actually say, the consensus is actually clear.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

So sorry, didn't mean to be confusing. "Too soon" was just the impression I got from the participants in the RM. That's not to say that I'm crystal balling it; actually just the opposite. None of us can say, so we can only hope that the sources will increase in both number and quality. As for adminship, I do respect it and have been helped a zillion times by some pretty awesome admins, but I do not want to be one. I don't know how much time I have left and I'd like to spend it doing as much of what I want to do as I can. Thank you for the kind thoughts, though! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 20:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I will probably circle back and re-propose in a few months. And I totally get that, if you enjoy doing what you do then why complicate it!--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you move these?

Hi User:Paine Ellsworth can you move Gauhar Khan Tanaaz Irani & Sanjjanaa page now as it’s been a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:4c8:54:9b5e:d9ed:c00e:4bbe:846b (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP 2a01+, move requests should go a full week, seven days, to give any interested editors time to !vote and leave their reasons. Two of those have gone about five days and one is only four days old, so forgive me because I don't like to close requests too early. I'll keep an eye on them, so please don't be impatient. Thank you for asking! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 09:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

PS. Also two things... please be sure to sign all your talk page questions and comments with 4 tildes, as in ~~~~. And please consider becoming a registered user. Thanks again! PS left by P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 09:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi User:Paine Ellsworth it’s been 7 days for the request move for Gauhar Khan and Tanaaz Irani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:4c8:55:da89:7c2a:37bd:f8e4:ebc5 (talk) 08:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi User:Paine Ellsworth no one has moved Gauhar and Tannaz page yet it’s been 7 days.