Jump to content

User talk: Paine Ellsworth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.234.100.60 (talk) at 12:43, 5 June 2017 (→Regarding your talk page editor...: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

head of giraffe
Wikipedia is a community effort of staggering proportions.
'to help us keep our minds sharp!'

MediaWiki:Move-redirect-text

I was thinking now that we have {{Redirect category shell}}, perhaps we could try to open another discussion to get MediaWiki:Move-redirect-text changed to this: 


{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from move}}
}}

Do you think it would be worth opening a discussion about it now, or are there any further changes you want to make first? nyuszika7h (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's awesome that you would suggest this, nyuszika7h! It was that discussion about {{Redr}} that ultimately led to the creation of the {{Rcat shell}}. And it would be great if we could get the shell into that MW page. I'm not really certain if other editors are ready to embrace the shell template to that extent, though. The template is ready to be used, and there is nothing more that needs to be done. It satisfies all the objections that were made to the Redr template. The only thing holding it back is that there has been no consensus among editors to add it to the MW page. That was the first objection to the Redr usage that was made on Redrose64's talk page. An editor wanted it removed from the MW page because there had been no consensus to add it. Since the two of us think it's ready to go, I'll work on a proposal and start a new discussion soon.  Paine  u/c 14:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a new type of redirect template

I just came across something I hadn't seen previously at Kernel (mathematics). Thought you might want to consider whether {{Wikidata redirect}} might be worth bring into line with the other types of redirect templates. older ≠ wiser 15:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Older ≠ wiser: Yes, the template's a year old, so it's time I figured out what to do with it. It's an interesting cross, sort of, between a hard and soft redirect type of template, placed on hard redirects to link to a sister project. I'll see what I can do. Thank you for spurring me on!  Paine  u/c 04:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Older ≠ wiser: An update... I have worked on the {{Wikidata redirect}} template to bring it up to speed. Let me know if you have any other concerns about it.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 06:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A quick question about redirect categorization

Hey, I noticed that you categorized a redirect I made, at USA at the 2016 Summer Olympics. I really appreciate it. Anyways, I wanted to ask about your categorization. I'm pretty new to this, and actually to wikipedia in general. I'm considering making many similar redirects (different years), and categorizing old ones. Why is it categorized as Redirects from short names and not just Redirects from initialisms? Thanks, Tamwin (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question, Tamwin, and thank you for asking! In a case like this, I use both the initialisms and the short name rcats because the title is a combination of the two. If it were just "USA" redirected to the "United States" article, then "R from initialisms" would be enough. In addition to that, the "USA at the 2016 Summer Olympics" title is a shorter form of the target's title.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 09:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Another question. I just created USA at the 2016 Olympics (using your rcats), before stoping to think about it. Do you think I should make them in both styles, or only the first one, or for all that matter only in the second style? Most of the existing ones appear to be in the first style, with one exception. Redirects are cheap, but I don't want to make things cluttered. Thanks, Tamwin (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pleasure! I'm glad to help. Not including "Summer" puts the redirect into an "ambiguous" state. See your target, United States at the 2016 Summer Olympics, and also the article on United States at the 2016 Winter Youth Olympics. Which should be the target of your new redirect? The answer might be "both" unless one target is the primary topic. Redirects can have only one target, so rather than create redirects that can have more than one target, it is usually better to be as concise as possible without being too concise. So how we create a redirect depends on what we think readers are trying to find and how those readers might type in the title they are seeking.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 20:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect error at Talk:Geospatial

Geospatial redirects to Geographic data and information, a stub with no talk page. The talk page used to read "#REDIRECT Talk:Geospatial analysis" until you placed an error template there. I followed both instructions that you left to no avail, so now I'm alerting you per request. User:HopsonRoad 15:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know about this, HopsonRoad! It seems to be fixed in my browser. The only red I saw was the talk page link, which meant that the talk page of the target did not exist. I started that page with an appropriate project banner, so the link has turned to blue.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 09:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@POTUS listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect @POTUS. Since you had some involvement with the @POTUS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, CHAMPION, for letting me know!  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 09:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation redirects

I see that you work with redirects and Rcats a lot, and when I saw this edit, I thought I'd give you a heads up, because I'm sure it won't be the last of these you run across.

Any redirect with " (disambiguation)" in the title is created to be used for deliberate links to the matching dab page (in hatnotes or "see also" sections). If the dab page doesn't exist any more, and if there are no other dab pages that it could reasonably redirect to, the page should be deleted. (I use CSD G6—housekeeping).

Happy editing! — Gorthian (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gorthian, and thank you very much for bringing this to my talk page and for your continued interest in the categorization of redirect pages! This is a case where I have yet to analyze the validity of using Hmong as a WP:PTOPIC redirect to Hmong people. When I came across this challenge in September, it was a busy time, and rather than delete the dab redirect I temporarily redirected it also to the "people" page. It still awaits my analysis and disposition, and I will get to it as soon as possible. As an aside, I am presently involved with a requested move discussion at Talk:Saraiki dialect where we are deciding if the bare Saraiki page title should be the title of (or redirect to) the Saraiki people or the Saraiki dialect articles. Again, thank you for coming!  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 09:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Completely understood. What a kerfuffle around Saraiki!
On a completely different subject, what the bleep...? — Gorthian (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Gorthian: yes, the Saraiki dialect and some other lect pages are politically charged subjects these days. Not sure what your bleep is about – I had added a secondary TOC for that section and decided to put in a link to the next section (alphanumeric listing) is all. What is it that you're questioning?  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 15:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is how that edit appears to me: . And the result: .
I forget how much different browsers and systems can vary in display. (Though it wasn't just me.) — Gorthian (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Point well taken. I have ridded the TOC of the symbol and have used text instead. Thank you again for your help with rcats and the rcat index!  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 01:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Gorthian: an update... I worked on the Hmong page and decided to turn it back into a disambiguation page, since there is no primary topic among the "Hmong foo" choices. That of course resulted in retargeting Hmong (disambiguation) back to "Hmong". Best of everything to you and yours!  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 10:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing discussion

I'm really sorry for bothering you again, but I wasn't sure I understood whether you minded some of our discussion getting collapsed? I was thinking not of the procedural one (that is closed now), but the one after Kautilya3's !vote, where we go on and on about footnote #3 and the pageviews. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you consider those pertinent? They are about whether or not "Saraiki" is an ambiguous title, and since one of your proposed options is the bare Saraiki title, I don't think it would be in the best interests of your argument to collapse them. I could be wrong.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 00:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just don't see them as relevant – they all clarify various misunderstandings that probably aren't going to arise for other people reading the discussion. But if you consider them pertinent, we should leave them (no big deal here). – Uanfala (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are a bravo

Man I know you are from some good family background. I respect you a lot. Please use new source given by DXawar and flaws in Tariq Rehman. The reason I have been beating them since 2012 is that I have genuine sources, local knowledge and I concentrate on flaws in their arguments. Allah has given us a beautiful power of locating flaws in evil argumentation of ego hit bad minds. When we believe in our self and use this power then whole world can not beat us. I am a very succesfull person in my life and reason is self belief and Gods help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.60.132.215 (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, IP 39+! Of course I will look into those sources; however, please don't get your hopes up too high because I appear to wield little influence in that discussion. Editors seem to be almost savagely bent on breaking the rules and going against community consensus, and there appears to be little that I can do about it. It may take divine intervention to open their eyes, and yet the dialect vs. language debate is so intense and ongoing that there may be little anyone can do to change the outcome. We'll see.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 16:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted text in question
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose move to Saraiki Assalam u Alikum everyone. I was invited here on 14 November 2016 post by this face book page https://www.facebook.com/Punjabi-Language-Dialects-139940776185766/?fref=ts&ref=br_tf . I am a university professor on comparative linguistics. Me neither Punjabi nor Saraiki but I followed this interesting discussion. And now I have made this account. I could not add my views due to 4 days 10 edit protection. If you allow me now I can give a balanced view. Everyone have a right to not agree with me. Filler party & Co emphasise Tariq Rehman source. In that source author writes (Rahman1995, p. 16) "the Siraiki call it a language in its own right." This means , Saraiki is used for people. Noting that this is the source which filler is over relying. Even in local Pakistani envoirnment we call Punjabi, Sindhi, Pathan, Balochi, Saraiki (for Punjabi/sindhi/Pashtun/Balochi/Saraiki peoples). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DXawar (talk • contribs) 08:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

− − Oppose move to Saraiki Language per status of Full Fledge Languages in Atlas of the Languages and Ethnic Communities of South Asia, Roland J. L. Breton, Punjabi is ‘’the language’’ heading Saraiki. This geographical atlas constitutes the first systematic presentation of the spatial and quantitative characteristics of the distribution of languages in the seven countries of South Asia. This atlas enables readers to actually see the geographical location, extension, and linguistic affinities of any of the numerous languages spoken in South Asia by combining and comparing language data from various national censuses. Part I introduces the reader to the relationship between language and the complex ethno cultural structure of the subcontinent. Professor J. L. Breton stresses both the importance of and difficulties in analysing the vitality of South Asian language groups and examines the similarities and differences in language use and various ethnic traits among similar population groups. The second part-which comprises 60 plates along with supporting text-is devoted to graphically analysing various aspects including regional distribution of language and ethnic communities; the relationship between language and race, tribe, caste, and religion; the main linguistic minorities; and ethno-political factors. Atlas of the Languages and Ethnic Communities of South Asia, Second Edition is an indispensable reference and resource tool to academics, students, and researchers interested in linguistics, geography, cultural studies, reference, anthropology, ethnology, and political science.

− Page 3 The Indo-Aryan Languages By Danesh Jain, George Cardona also reaffirms list with saraiki under Punjabi language speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DXawar (talk • contribs) 08:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honest job man. You are unbelievable. Now it is time to restore pre-dispute version of Saraiki dialect [1] in the light of Dispute resolution decision i.e. Revert all Language edits, Saraiki is a dialect as per RFC. [2]. For leade you can add further sources like [3], [4], [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13][14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. Best wishes for your great family. Yor are most fair person here. SALUTES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.73.215 (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, IP 182+! I hope to address this issue in the near future; however, I doubt that the POV pushing by the other editor is over. I shall look at the sources you've given above and will make my best evaluation of them. Thank you again, and please follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in the future, because it takes much more than just being right about something, it also takes adherence to encyclopedic procedures. Be sure especially to read and follow this important policy. I try to give the benefit of the doubt, and yet if an editor is correct but does not follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, that just makes it harder for those of us who do. Best of everything to you and yours!  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 17:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@POTUS listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect @POTUS. Since you had some involvement with the @POTUS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OMG most awesome welcome thing

IDK if you manually added that [to my talk page] or if a bot did, but I like it. As somebody who wants to help wikipedia and originally felt overwhelmed by the insane amount of help pages all jumbled over the place, this is a nice quick-links page to useful information... with nice and friendly smilies =). Thanks! Feel free to delete this message after you read it, to clear up space on your talk page, I won't be offended.

Popcrate (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pleasure, Popcrate! and rather than delete posts on my talk page, I prefer to archive them after awhile. Hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia as much as I do, and Best of Everything to You and Yours!  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 10:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old friend

Your old friend is now trying new fancy things. [22]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.191.48 (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CSS styling in templates

Hello everyone, and sincere apologies if you're getting this message more than once. Just a heads-up that there is currently work on an extension in order to enable CSS styling in templates. Please check the document on mediawiki.org to discuss best storage methods and what we need to avoid with implementation. Thanks, m:User:Melamrawy (WMF), 09:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John O'Hara POV

Hi Paine, Glad to see you're working on the John O'Hara page again. Could you take a look at the Talk page where I added some comments yesterday? First, I congratulate you on making the page more readable - the old version was a lot clunkier. Then I identify four sentences dating from January which arguably push the boundaries of WK POV.

I like your approach, which is broadly positive about O'Hara, but feel that occasionally your enthusiasm takes over... I could tweak these passages myself, but really would much rather you did it - you clearly know more about this author than I do, and can perform the necessary balancing act. Thanks, Bry Brymor (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brymor – I linked to the page in question, "John O'Hara", and find myself totally in the dark. I have no memory of ever editing that page, nor does the history show that I've ever done so. Are you confusing me with someone else? (Don't feel too badly, as I've done this before, myself.)  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 22:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cram101

You added references to Cram101 to List of phobias. However, Cram101 is not reliable and copies information from Wikipedia then paraphrases it. I suggest checking the entries you'd used Cram101 to support (e.g. variations of "barophobia") to see if they can really be verified. Fences&Windows 20:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fences&Windows – thank you very much for the heads up! There was nothing to indicate that Cram101 had copied Wikipedia in this case; however, if their usual course is to copy and paraphrase Wikipedia, then perhaps they should be blacklisted. In any case, there are numerous sources for the material on barophobia, the fear of gravity, such as this one at New York City's School of Visual Arts. Is that one a good source in your opinion?  Paine Ellsworth  - put'r there – 05:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cram101 are definitely never reliable, they just crib from elsewhere to produce incoherent "books". As they are on Google Books they can't be blacklisted, and though an edit filter may be possible when I requested this several times for the similar Alphascript after getting consensus... and nothing was done. A list of such sources is in WP:PUS, with some searches to find them. Occasionally, I and others do a trawl to remove them.
That new source is a Master's art project, not a good source for psychiatric diagnosis. Barophobia appears in lists of phobias dating back at least to the 1970s, but as a real name for a real phobia in medicine I'm not finding much. PubMed draws a blank, Google Scholar tells us "Most bacteria are barophobic in that their growth is inhibited by pressure" - quite a different meaning. I did find G. Stanley Hall: A Study of Fears. The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Jan., 1897), pp. 147-249, which says "without any suggestion of a new morbid entity, it would be convenient to have a term like barophobia for the gravity fears". Full text available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/1410940, though I've not accessed it. Should this list of phobias perpetuate poorly attested fears or poorly attested names for fears? Fences&Windows 08:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fences&Windows – I agree that "no" is the correct response; however, I wonder how many others in the list perpetuate poorly attested names for phobias? In any case, I have removed "barophobia" from the "B" list and placed it in the "G" list as "Gravity phobia". And to support the entry, I've included both your source and my second source just to give readers extra information about the phobia. Your source has very interesting details about gravity phobia as well as other phobias. Thank you for that! Feel free to improve upon the entry as you wish.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  23:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rcats

Hi Paine. Would you mind adjusting rcats to the redirect Iron Lady? Great job by the way, on all the work you have done with the redirects and such. Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 23:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could you add Iron Lady (disambiguation) as a hatnote, as well please? Thanks again.--Nevé–selbert 00:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words, Nevé–selbert! All is complete – I used the merge rcat per JFG's post near the top of the AfD discussion, and therefore the "with history" rcat was not needed. I also included the printworthy rcat and the hatnote. Thanks again!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  07:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

US Presidents navbox

Greetings Paine! In the "last-ditch effort" poll at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 February 7#Template:US Presidential Administrations, you wrote "Merge drafts are simply too busy and hard for our readers to navigate." Well, certainly a lot of them are, and this discussino has suffered from an excess of choice. But have you looked at the latest Draft:US Presidents navbox, which was built with input from several participants? It looks much clearer to me than the existing boxes {{US Presidents}} and {{US Presidential Administrations}}. Hoping you might reconsider. Kind regards, — JFG talk 23:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JFG, and welcome! I would agree that the latest draft of the merge is the best of several; however, I still think the templates should be kept separate, and I think the date ranges are not needed at all. (On a peripheral note, I would have named the merged template, Presidents of the United States and their administrations).  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  00:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. There was ultimately no consensus to merge, however I have applied the more legible column styling to {{US Presidential Administrations}}; hope you like it. Good day, — JFG talk 05:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, JFG, definitely better than before.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  05:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Starfire (DC Comics) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Starfire (DC Comics). Since you had some involvement with the Starfire (DC Comics) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  ONR  (talk)  20:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,  ONR  for this notification!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  06:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A potential area for improvement

Hello Paine, I hope you are and have been well since our last Wikipedia interaction. Today, after editing this redirect, I noticed the page was segregating to both Category:Printworthy redirects and Category:Unprintworthy redirects. It seems to nullify the productive potential of this categorization scheme when a redirect page can populate them both, simultaneously, but I may well be missing something? I am interested in knowing your thoughts to these regards. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John, and thank you for your well wishes! Just had a little surgery and am recuperating nicely. And you? Hope you and yours are also doing well. What you have missed is fairly subtle and non-critical. The printworthiness should be one or the other, never both. That is why some of the rcats have "gone soft" and can be changed from one state to the other. The Lamont Sanford redirect is an example of {{R with possibilities}}, which is always auto-printworthy (hard), and {{R to anchor}}, which is auto-unprintworthy by default and can be changed to printworthy with the first parameter (soft). Also, for future reference, {{This is a redirect}} has been deprecated and replaced by the {{Redirect category shell}}. Best to you!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  18:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this reply, and for your well wishes too! I reviewed the changes you made to correct these matters and will be more diligent in following its example. I'll also ensure that I discontinue using the deprecated template. I still believe we can do better for I've an inkling there may be many pages similarly situated in both categories and no good way to otherwise know of their existence. I will see about working up some changes to later purpose. Thanks again.--John Cline (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Converting deprecated redr to rcat shell

Thanks for your good work! Figured you might like to know that I'm trying to help out a little in converting those old {{redr}}/{{this is a redirect}} templates to rcat shell. Who knows, we might see all of them converted before the end of the decade... AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, AWNH, for your good work! It's always good to hear that someone is helping with any part of redirect categorization. I've been thinking about including a category with This is a redirect and a warning that can be seen in Show preview. The discussion is here. Would appreciate your thoughts on this.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  20:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. :) As to the discussion, will take a look at it and see if I can't leave a response there. I'm also categorizing Lepidoptera redirects, but I've been doing that for a while now. There's, ah, very, very many of them (no clue as to the exact amount, but I am certain its a number with six digits. 's what you get, when a wikiproject's two most prolific article-and-redirect creators are both in the top ten of mainspace page creators, or the top four of non-bot mainspace page creators...), many of which are not categorized, or only have {{r from move}}, so that I'll be doing for a fair while still.
On a related note, ever get the feeling that dealing with these kind of tasks gets your feeling for what's 'large scale' a bit out of whack with the rest of the 'pedia? :P Because I find myself staring at the screen in puzzled confusion for a minute or two every time someone refers to a task dealing with a couple hundred articles as large/massive before I realize that just because I keep ending up working in parts where four-digits is "well-doable" and three-digits is "a small task to do in between other stuff", the same doesn't go for most others. XD AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All redirects that are both in Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names and Category:Redirects to monotypic taxa (presuming, at least, that AWB didn't skip out on some while making the list...the larger categories can be finicky to get full lists of) either use separate redirect templates (a handful of them) or, if they were using deprecated templates, have been converted to Rcat shell. :) Couple hundred of them (~250), so it doesn't make a huge difference on the total, but it's progress. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thank you so much, and I've responded on the template talk page.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  08:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Starfire (DC Comics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Starfire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...beware, there be rambling here (Questions, ideas and a brainstorm alert!)

Hey again. Was wondering, were WP:WikiProject Redirect and WP:WikiProject Templates notified of redr's deprecation and/or asked to help with conversion? If not, might help some. At utter least, it would make more folks aware of the deprecation; at best, we might get a few more hands willing to dedicate some time to converting redrs to rcat shells.
Also, do you figure the WP:Signpost might be interested in a small piece about redr/rcat shell? Maybe a short part about the history/development of redr and rcat shell, a summary of the reasons redr was deprecated in favour of rcat shell and a call for hands in helping convert stuff? Again it'd help the word get out there at utter least and at best may net us some more folks to help.
Brainstorm alert: Was also wondering, what do you think of the idea to organize a little contest geared towards converting the templates? For the sake of a custom barnstar or similar wikilove reward. Say, in May or so. Would allow us the rest of March to brainstorm and organize things, April to advertise the contest, get sign-ups and adapt/clarify based upon feedback and questions and May to actually hold it. Provided we actually get some interest, could help make a big dent in the transclusions.
Also figured I'd let you know I have a nifty little userscript—custom written for me by the lovable Writ Keeper—that I've found to be quite helpful when dealing with redirects. It basically treats every redirect as though &redirect=no is appended, saving me a lot of clicks when doing redirect-work from categories, links in prose or AWB-lists dumped in userspace. (It does have some limitations. Redirects from the topsearch dropdown are still followed; the article tab at the top of the page next to the talk tab still follows redirects through to the target when clicked & it of course does nothing for off-site links. Still, it helps for most other places where Wikipedia doesn't already automatically do so—What Links Here comes to mind as one of those places where Wikipedia already does so on its own.)
Downside is that when using a redirect for its actual purpose—getting redirected somewhere—it adds another click. (Still, the couple of extra clicks of those cases certainly don't weigh up against the many, many clicks saved, in my experience) I imagine you may find it helpful as well, since you do even more redirect work than I do. That is, provided you don't have something similar whipped up yourself already. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor AWNH: the idea to deprecate redr and replace it with the rcat shell is a fairly new one, and there are editors who really liked redr (I was one of them). I could come across a redirect, check its history for a move or merge or both, tag it with redr and appropriate rcats, all in just a few seconds, because I was so used to using it. Since I was not alone in liking the better format of redr over tagging with individual rcats, that's probably why I have been taking things slowly. And I suppose I figured that due to a growing interest in categorizing redirects, it wouldn't really take that long to convert to the rcat shell just by leaving it to manual conversions. I could be wrong, but I avoid bots and even AWB because redirects often need more than a bot or AWB can be set up to do. Maybe another rcat or two, perhaps a printworthy/unprintworthy rcat, or maybe an incorrect rcat needs to be removed. Not sure about The Signpost idea, since redirects have never been brought to the forefront of Wikipedia that I know of. They have always taken a backseat to article creation and other more visible aspects. Could be tried, though. Good brainstorm! And I want to encourage you to have more of them and to follow through on the ones you like. I've always been pretty much of a behind-the-scenes editor, so whatever you may need in that capacity and I'll try to help. I very much like user scripts that help make editing easier! My latest find is a template script that places links in the left margin of an edit page, links that position full rcat names into the edit screen, so they don't have to be typed in. Saves me a lot of time, even moreso than using shortcut templates.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  23:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'll readily admit I was fond of Redr as well, but when it's deprecated, it's deprecated and there's no use whining about it. Besides, the reasons for replacement with Rcat shell are sensible enough, so instead of loudly clamouring how much I'd miss redr and didn't want a change, I settled on "-frown- Now I need to get used to a different template again. -pout, sigh- Oh well, let's get on with converting 'm, then".
I don't do bots either. I do use AWB but only for the purpose of list-making, really. Of course, some of my manual editing borders on MEATBOT (though carefully stays within the rules; no disruption, no larger number of errors much less non-self-corrected errors than one'd expect from someone editing more slowly--I don't like dramah) with the speed and frequency I can reach, especially when I go looking for pages needing the exact same change rather than a large number of pages needing a change. Long as I'm careful enough to keep an eye out for unexpected needed changes, template-parameters only visible in the source and similar, and make sure to visually confirm the bunch of recent edits to fix mistakes should I have made them, I can keep up fairly high sustained speeds and really high peak-speeds. For some of my easiest and most repetitive stuff, it's not like I would actually be faster using AWB anyway...and while I would be faster through AWB when it comes to more varied tasks, I much prefer to not do it at breakneck speed when working from a mixed list or on a mixed issue. As to what bots and AWB--especially well-supervised AWB--can do, though—quite a lot, but the time it takes to either set everything up to account for every possible variation or manually verify entire lists is probably not worth it when it's a task where there actually are folks willing to slough about doing it manually. The 'making the edit' part of "check, verify needed change & convert" is the fastest/most minor part of converting them anyway. I'll admit that I'm mostly just converting what is there except when I happen to notice more changes are needed: I'm not going out of my way to look for them. (That's a different task. One I'm also doing, at least for Lepidoptera, but I prefer not mixing them too much lest I start dreaming of pairs of curly brackets with redirect template names in between. Or should that be, dreaming again? I totally haven't had a nightmare before where a troll went behind my back and undid all the r from alt scientific name tagging I had done in a month before. Nah...that'd be silly.)
There's a lot that doesn't get brought to the forefront of Wikipedia or even the editors' side of Wikipedia. Sometimes that's a good thing—there's folks managing to actually get into protracted multipage edit-and-move-wars over friggin' punctuation, after all—but it does mean that on some jobs we're eternally down to a handful of editors holding the fort. (And then folks wonder why some people start growing slightly OWNerish over basic infrastructural stuff...it's sometimes hard to keep that feeling out when you know that on some issues it's a. you that fixes it, here and now; b. you that fixes it, some undetermined point down the line or c. likely going to remain unfixed for a few years at the least, if not ever. Makes me hit the bunk every now and then, to be honest. It also plays a role in why I ramble so much here and at a few other folks' talks. It's not like what we're doing is going to ever get acknowledged or the frustration understood except by the couple folks in similar positions anyway. Better vent on a user talk every now and then than bottle up frustration, I guess. If I'm rambling/ranting/whining too much, though, just slap me down, I'll fully understand.)
I'll keep a look at the speed at which we're getting the transclusions down. If current speed keeps up, there's little use in setting up additional ways of getting folks to help because by the time we've got them worked in, the task is about to be done anyway, and spending my time converting stuff is then likely to be more efficient than spending time setting things up. (...you know you've been gnoming and working in neglected areas too much when your response to handling six-digit-numbers with a couple of folks starts looking more like 'wow, I'll actually be not alone dealing with this? Great, this is something we can deal with with a handful of people!' than like 'dear gods that's about one in every twenty pages on en.wiki ' XD) Might still drop a quick note at the two wikiprojects I mentioned, though, we'll see. But worth keeping an eye on, as I fully expect the speed to drop down seriously once the easier-to-convert stuff is out of the way and we're left mostly with infrequent combinations and massive combinations. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again!

I'm drafting up some stuff in my userspace in regards to the redr-conversion effort. Would you mind taking a look at User:AddWittyNameHere/redr/usernote and User:AddWittyNameHere/redr/projectnote? (The former is just a basic quick usernote I can subst: and then sign (and possibly add some info between the substed part and the signature when/where needed; the latter is the first draft of my proposed notification to the wikiprojects redirect and template). Guide mentioned in the latter isn't written yet; I'm collecting info and will write it out into full prose later. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor AWNH: So sorry, not feeling well the past few days. Yes, that all looks very good. I've posted similar messages to user talk pages when I come across recent usages of Redr.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  15:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't apologize, your health comes first. I've been remarkably busy IRL the past few days myself anyway. I'll see about developing that little guide mentioned as well, might be helpful. You worry about getting better first, 'k?AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transferring articles from Gaelic-language site

I was looking for an article about Henry Whyte (d. 1913), a Scots Gaelic writer who used the nom de plume Finn (Fionn). I found an article in Gaelic at this URL: https://www.wikiwand.com/gd/Henry_Whyte_(Fionn). It is available in English at <https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=gd&u=https://gd.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Whyte_(Fionn)&prev=search>. However, I do not find it in the English-language Wikipedia. How does one go about entering that article on this site? (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor EDGRC: There is a redirect, Henry Whyte to a disambiguation page. You would want to use that redirect to create an article, since there is no need for further disambiguation on enwiki. There is a guide that can help you with the transformation from gdwiki to enwiki: Wikipedia:Translation. I used that guide to translate an article from Italian. Please don't hesitate to ask if more help is needed, and thank you for coming to ask!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  15:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just a note!

There is a 15-month old underconstruction template at the top of Template:Under construction with your username noted as the last to edit it. The article is locked, so I couldn't remove it. I thought you'ld like to know.——→StephenTS42 (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, StephenTS42! Actually, that's just the "example" that shows what the template would look like on a page you're editing. It only shows me as the most recent editor because I made a change to it as the result of an edit request on the talk page. Just so you know, I am also a veteran and once went through all the "withdrawals" of being stationed in battle zones. You just get through it and get clear. That's my sincere hope for you, and thanks again for coming to my talk page!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  18:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I have altered the template so as to make all this more clear to all editors. Thank you for the inspiration! PS added by  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there 

Template:Ambiguous template name

I just created Template:Ambiguous template name for the purpose of pages in the Template namespace which have been determined to have ambiguous names. Feel free to tweak it. I've already replaced a few instances of {{Error}} with this template, so there should already be transclusions. I was also considering adding a new category which will be populated with transclusions of templates which use this one. Steel1943 (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Steel1943: I would like to learn more... this was placed on {{R from synonym}}, for example, and so all the redirects that have been tagged transclude this template. Is that what you wanted to do?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  12:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Paine! See Template talk:R from synonym#Merging categories?, specifically the comment I made there about this template. (I'm directing you there instead of continuing the conversation here since I just realized how limited my time on Wikipedia just became for the day, and it seems attention to this template [or a similar template] may be needed.) Also, the edit you referenced on Template:R from synonym: I reverted it for the time being until the plans get worked out for the template: I realized that I may have been doing too much to early, so I reverted that edit, then sure enough, the comment on the template's talk page that I referenced supported my need to revert for now. Steel1943 (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"see this argument"

I would frankly very much prefer that rather than putting a lot of "see this argument" links that would send readers to many different places to get the picture, that you summarize what the argument is, and use the link as a sort of "for more information" proposal. The entire reasoning should be discernible without leaving the page where the discussion is being held. bd2412 T 20:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, bd2412, and after I visit a few hours with my snugglebunny, I'll spruce that up.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  20:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! I will likely drop in my own observations from editing statistics over the next few days. bd2412 T 20:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pleasure! Paine  

Template:ISO 639 name art

It's a minor thing, but the link to Artificial languages language makes no sense, nor do the category names. Would you be amenable to moving all of the categories to "... constructed languages"? I think that would actually make some sense. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Jonesey95: it's always been a bit muddy; however, a "constructed language", such as Esperanto, does not apply in many cases. Some cases are examples of a "fictional language", such as Quenya and Klingon. So "artificial language", as applied to redirects, long ago began to be used as a general term to refer to both constructed and fictional languages. As you say, it's a minor thing, so minor that no one, including myself, has given it enough priority to change all the other things that would need to be changed to ensure that readers aren't led in different and incorrect directions. In line with your concerns, I have slightly modified the doc page so that the See also section at {{ISO 639 name art}} doesn't appear so badly.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  23:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that fix. Category:Articles containing Artificial languages-language text still strikes me as unnecessarily broken, but I've got plenty of actually broken things to fix, so I'll try to move on. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Jonesey95: it's a pleasure! and I've extended the exception to the mainspace category name in the Usage section, also. Best to you!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  10:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

This is for those awesome talk page stalkers and also for those who have decided to come to my talk page from editor Dane's RfA. That and the previous RfA are shining examples of why I would not put myself through the RfA process a second time. I read through Dane's RfA and, like Kudpung and others, I soon became aware of the way some other editors just toss out all civility. They just don't seem to know how to communicate with other people. What the process needs in my humble opinion is not "community vetting", at least not that which actually has a say in whether or not an editor is promoted. The process needs "administrative vetting", which may still rely on what any members of the community think; however, the actual decision whether or not to give an editor the admin toolset should be made by admins! Such decisive admins should be senior admins who are not only trusted by the community, but also trusted through their experience as admins. The community should still be able to ask questions and even !vote with rationales; however, their only actual decisive power would be the words they use to influence the senior admins who will make the final decision about whether or not a candidate gets the admin toolset. I do think that editors who participate in RfAs would then become much more conscious of their need to communicate positively and far less prone to negativity in their responses and rationales. While I seriously doubt that improvement to the RfA process is forthcoming anytime soon, I'll probably be old and gray before RfA is fixed. Oh wait! I'm already old and gray! Oh well.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  08:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I would like a little cheese with my whine.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  08:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Paine Ellsworth. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Steel1943 (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R sn listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:R sn. Since you had some involvement with the Template:R sn redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking advice

Hello Paine. I believe we should change the statement made where Rcats speak of "printworthiness", and say:

At some point in the future, Jimmy Wales wants to make more printed versions of Wikipedia encyclopedia articles.

Although I'm not entirely certain of its necessity, or purpose, I do believe it should not be written in future tense, nor with its singular attribution. As a mere segue to the categorization of print worthiness, for example; it could instead say:

In 2003, efforts to support the Wikimedia Foundation's goal of increasing the access and availability of Wikipedia articles in printed versions began.

The above example is not purposed, but meant to illustrate my intent, I am fine with any modification to improve its prose. It is the change from the "dated" future tense to the perpetually true past tense, and changing the context from a singular to a collective attribution that I am interested in seeking.

I am, initially, curious to know your thoughts to these regards, and then, to know how you suggest I proceed? Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, and you certainly honor me with this post, so thank you for that! To be honest, I created the Jimbo reference long ago and grew very attached to it. However, after thinking about it for awhile, I tend to agree with you that a more general reference should be used. Take a gander at {{R from ISO 4}}'s /doc page, and see if that meets your approval. I slightly altered the wording to:

In 2003, efforts were begun to support Wikimedia Foundation's goal of increasing access and availability of Wikipedia articles in printed versions.

...so please see if that's the gist of what you suggested. Also note that I made the edit with AWB. When we think the text is ready, it won't take long to change the 230 or so /doc pages – I can do it almost in the blink of an eye.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  04:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you; that is better. It seems like "... support Wikimedia Foundation's goal ..." needs a diffinitive article to be grammatically correct. It should be "... support the Wikimedia Foundation's goal ...", I believe. Then I think it would be in perfect accord with the change I had hoped to see. Thank you very much.--John Cline (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay John, that should take care of all of them. Thanks again for your help with these!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  03:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Redirect category/doc

To editor John Cline: just FYI, the support for this edit is found at H:DL.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  07:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of universities and names

When I'm responding to an edit request, I always scroll up to see if it's already been asked. I can't think how I missed it, considering it was the next section up. Thanks for not making me look like a complete idiot. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would have, but I would've looked like an idiot just tryin' to make you look like one.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  18:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Rivertorch: just fyi, the decision was to rename the page to the university's official name.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow this seems like 10 months ago, not 10 days. Shall I go back and make the change at Durrës, then? RivertorchFIREWATER 16:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Rivertorch: still don't see any reason to bypass the redirect, but it's up to you.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll leave it alone. Inertia is my default state, at least until another external force arrives on the scene. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I heard that.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  17:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects Template:R cm and Template:R cs have been nominated at RfD

Since you have some involvement in at least one of the templates, and are the R cat template expert, you are invited to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 1#Template:R cm. Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Thryduulf for your kind words and for this notification!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  02:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Medical Association article

Hello Paine, Thank you for your support with the Japan Medical Association Journal and Japan Medical Association articles. If you have a spare moment could I ask you to look briefly over the grammar and style of the Japan Medical Association article, and point out anything that needs improving? I've checked the a accessibility standard against the MOS:ACCESS and Nihonjoe has helped ongoing with other areas. I thought it would be helpful for third party proofreading.

Thanks Dr.khatmando (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC) Dr.khatmando (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a pleasure, Dr.khatmando!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  04:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the help and a little happiness!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.khatmando (talk • contribs) 04:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the spit n polish. The article is a little shinier now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.khatmando (talk • contribs) 05:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time

I'd like to ask for your help on Template:Redirect category. I think it would be best if the default output was rendered with the full syntax when no parameters are invoked as it would if only the template were called. That is, I believe {{Redirect category|from=|to=|template=|parameters=|sortkey=}}

and

{{Redirect category}}

should render the same output.

Currently if |template= or |parameters= are present, but blank, the output is suboptimal when compared to their absence. The other parameters do not affect the default output whether they are in place but left blank or completely omitted. Is it possible for |template= and |parameters= to have the same action? Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor John Cline: does the code I've placed in the sandbox do what you expect? Not sure what you mean by the two parameters having the same action. I've found that these can get a little complicated in the language categories where |parameters=rcat with parameters becomes involved so the {{!}} must be used instead of a pipe. Not sure why we would want the "same action" from those two separate parameters?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  15:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for the confusion. I did not mean to ask if |template= and |parameters= could themselves be the same but rather if they could be like |from=, |to=, and |sortkey= in as much as the blank parameter has the same effect on the template's output as omitting the parameter for the latter three whereas the first two do not. I hope that is clear enough. If not, let me know and I'll try again. Thanks for you help.--John Cline (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To editor John Cline: thank you for making that clearer! The code at Redirect category/sandbox now makes them have the same action. If that is the action you want, you can transfer the sandbox code to the live template if you like.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  07:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. While it it true that the sandbox code now renders the same output with the parameters omitted as with them in place but blank, it is the sub-optimal form which prevailed. That is, I think {{Redirect category shell|(rcat link)}} is preferable to {{[[Template:| ]]}} for the default output. Also see Template:Redirect category/testcases. Thank you again.--John Cline (talk) 09:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John I'm curious. You call the present form "sub-optimal". Have you considered that the only reason the name of a template is included after the pipe in a parameter is so that the name of an example template will appear on the template page itself? Whereever the Redirect category template is used, the specific shell template's name is included using the |template= parameter, i.e., |template=Rcat shell. I know of no application that just uses the bare Redirect category template, nor is there any application that would use the |parameters= or |template= parameters without arguments, such as |parameters={{R from miscapitalisation}}. Am I wrong, John? Do you know of any application for the Redirect category template that only uses the bare template with no parameters and arguments?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  11:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You make a valid point, and I agree. My only intention was to ensure that the examples and instructions at Template:Redirect category/doc were in full accord with how the template actually rendered its output. It was always an option to modify the instructions if modifying the template's coding was otherwise impractical. Considering the template's internal coding is useful and fine, I'll focus on ensuring the /doc page is corrected wherever it may be needed. I seriously appreciate the time and effort you have given to this matter, and apologize where my manner of asking the question made things more difficult because I was unclear at times.--John Cline (talk) 06:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Always a pleasure, John!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  09:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding {{DEFAULTSORT:}}

Hello Paine. I noticed that you changed the instruction for {{DEFAULTSORT:}}'s placement from "the second new line after the rcats" to "the first new line after the rcats". Unless we also change Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect/Style guide#Individually, and the other places in the style guide showing {{DEFAULTSORT:}}'s placement, there is a contradiction. What are your thoughts to this regard? Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the Defaultsort is added on the second new line after the Rcat shell, then there is unnecessary whitespace after the Mbox when the edit is saved. I like the idea of ensuring readability for editors by skipping a line after the REDIRECT line when adding the Rcat shell, but as long as the shell is added like other shells, putting the Defaultsort on the very next line after the shell not only gets rid of the unnecessary whitespace, it is also still easily readable, as in:
#REDIRECT [[(target)]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{Rcat 1}}
{{Rcat 2}}
{{Rcat N}}
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:(sortkey)}}
And by the way, your edit was a very good improvement to add that sortkey to the template to help editors remember to add the sortkey when its needed!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  09:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Paine, I appreciate your encouragement, and above all, your kind, collegial manner of collaboration. Wikipedia works because of people like you; indeed it is the foremost reason why I have remained an editing member unto this day. FWIW, I agree with your change, and feel it is supported by Template:DEFAULTSORT/doc as well. I had written it as "the second new line" only to conform with the redirect style guide. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 10:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pleasure! Paine  
Also John, I want you to know that you opened a can of worms, an absolutely delicious can of worms, when you added the |sortkey= parameter. I decided to go through the Wikipedia redirects category to add the new parameter to those categories that need it, and thus far I've not only found several that needed the parameter, I've also had to remove rcats from several soft category redirects, notify those editors not to tag soft redirects with rcats, and I am presently building /doc pages for two new rcats I found that still need to be indexed. And I'm only up to letter "i" in the category! Haven't had this much fun for awhile, so thank you very much for that!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  15:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "rcats should never be used on soft redirects"

I believe you, but can you point me to where this guidance is? I've never encountered it before, and I want to understand the reasoning. —swpbT 14:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi swpb and thank you for asking! You will find an information template near the top of the documentation page for every rcat. Rcats should not be substituted nor should they be placed on soft redirects. Only recently has an exception emerged: {{Wikidata redirect}} is specially designed to link redirects to their Wikidata pages and is the only redirect category template that can be used on soft redirects, usually in mainspace.
This little "rule" has been in effect since long before I registered as an editor. The makers decided that it was not desirable to fill redirect categories with a lot of empty subcategories. When a category itself is categorized, it doesn't become an "entry" in the category, it actually becomes a "subcategory" of that category. So if an rcat is used to tag a soft category redirect, that category becomes an empty subcategory of the category that is applied by the rcat. That is an undesirable effect, so the makers banned rcats from soft redirects. That is how I found your edit, by checking the redirect categories from time to time for several things including empty categories. Hope this helps!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  15:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing News #1—2017

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

VisualEditor
Did you know?

Did you know that you can review your changes visually?

Screenshot showing some changes to an article. Most changes are highlighted with text formatting.
When you are finished editing the page, type your edit summary and then choose "Review your changes".

In visual mode, you will see additions, removals, new links, and formatting highlighted. Other changes, such as changing the size of an image, are described in notes on the side.

Toggle button showing visual and wikitext options; visual option is selected.

Click the toggle button to switch between visual and wikitext diffs.

Screenshot showing the same changes, in the two-column wikitext diff display.

The wikitext diff is the same diff tool that is used in the wikitext editors and in the page history.

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

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has spent most of their time supporting the 2017 wikitext editor mode which is available inside the visual editor as a Beta Feature, and adding the new visual diff tool. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, supporting the 2017 wikitext editor as a beta feature, and improving the visual diff tool.

Recent changes

A new wikitext editing mode is available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices. The 2017 wikitext editor has the same toolbar as the visual editor and can use the citoid service and other modern tools. Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures to enable the ⧼Visualeditor-preference-newwikitexteditor-label⧽.

A new visual diff tool is available in VisualEditor's visual mode. You can toggle between wikitext and visual diffs. More features will be added to this later. In the future, this tool may be integrated into other MediaWiki components. [23]

The team have added multi-column support for lists of footnotes. The <references /> block can automatically display long lists of references in columns on wide screens. This makes footnotes easier to read. You can request multi-column support for your wiki. [24]

Other changes:

  • You can now use your web browser's function to switch typing direction in the new wikitext mode. This is particularly helpful for RTL language users like Urdu or Hebrew who have to write JavaScript or CSS. You can use Command+Shift+X or Control+Shift+X to trigger this. [25]
  • The way to switch between the visual editing mode and the wikitext editing mode is now consistent. There is a drop-down menu that shows the two options. This is now the same in desktop and mobile web editing, and inside things that embed editing, such as Flow. [26]
  • The Categories item has been moved to the top of the Page options menu (from clicking on the "hamburger" icon) for quicker access. [27] There is also now a "Templates used on this page" feature there. [28]
  • You can now create <chem> tags (sometimes used as <ce>) for chemical formulas inside the visual editor. [29]
  • Tables can be set as collapsed or un-collapsed. [30]
  • The Special character menu now includes characters for Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics and angle quotation marks (‹› and ⟨⟩) . The team thanks the volunteer developer, Tpt. [31]
  • A bug caused some section edit conflicts to blank the rest of the page. This has been fixed. The team are sorry for the disruption. [32]
  • There is a new keyboard shortcut for citations: Control+Shift+K on a PC, or Command+Shift+K on a Mac. It is based on the keyboard shortcut for making links, which is Control+K on a PC or Command+K on a Mac. [33]

Future changes

  • The VisualEditor team is working with the Community Tech team on a syntax highlighting tool. It will highlight matching pairs of <ref> tags and other types of wikitext syntax. You will be able to turn it on and off. It will first become available in VisualEditor's built-in wikitext mode, maybe late in 2017. [34]
  • The kind of button used to Show preview, Show changes, and finish an edit will change in all WMF-supported wikitext editors. The new buttons will use OOjs UI. The buttons will be larger, brighter, and easier to read. The labels will remain the same. You can test the new button by editing a page and adding &ooui=1 to the end of the URL, like this: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Sandbox?action=edit&ooui=1 The old appearance will no longer be possible, even with local CSS changes. [35]
  • The outdated 2006 wikitext editor will be removed later this year. It is used by approximately 0.03% of active editors. See a list of editing tools on mediawiki.org if you are uncertain which one you use. [36]

If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you! User:Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect issue

Hi Paine, re: this edit, the result is displaying an error of some sort. I'm not clear on how to properly resolve it, so an FYI in case you are. :) Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Vote

Respected Sir

Can I have your vote here. [37] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.67.36 (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just signed in at 19:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC), and that discussion has been procedurally closed and under a sock-puppet investigation at 12:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC).  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  19:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it. Now you can vote if you like or start new one. only if you feel easy . Other wise stay blessed. REGARDS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.51.186.194 (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shoah ambiguous

Je ne comprends pas la question, car je ne sais pas tres bien utilise wikipedia. Merci de m'avoir lue. Cordialement. Henia Perlman (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Henia Perlman, for coming to my talk page. Normalement, nous classifions des redirections ambiguës. Je ferai les changements afin que vous voyiez ce que je veux dire. Et juste pour référence future, sur Wikipedia, il est préférable de répondre au même endroit de l'enquête, dans ce cas sur votre page de discussion. (not a big deal)  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  23:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paine, merci. Henia Perlman (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure! Paine  

SHOAH DEFINITION IN ENGLISH Can you help me please to present the issue to the salon of mediation? I don't know how to do it? Thanks! Henia Perlman (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Henia Perlman: Please forgive my ignorance of the term. I'm not sure I understand – what is it about Shoah and about Holocaust that needs to be changed?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Forum

Can you help me please give me the website for the mediation forum, because, I keep being annulled. Thank you. Cheers.Henia Perlman (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Henia Perlman: Quel forum de médiation dois-je suggérer? Pardonne mon ignorance du terme. Je ne suis pas sûr de comprendre - qu'est-ce que l'on parle de Shoah et de l'Holocauste qui doit être changé?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  15:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Salon in the ENGLISH Wiki

Is there a forum of mediation in ENGLISH, like there is one in the FRENCH wiki? Thanks for your prompt attention.Henia Perlman (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There might be something lost in the translation. I'm trying to tell you that I don't know, because I have no idea what type of mediation you seek. If you want to discuss the Shoah redirect, then you want the talk page of The Holocaust article, that is, Talk:The Holocaust.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust

To editor Henia Perlman: I just read the discussion at Talk:The Holocaust beginning with the section copy rights. Information from memory. First, I note that the other editors appear to be trying very hard to work with you. Secondly, you are running into problems in two areas:

  • 1) your growing but still limited grasp of the English language, and
  • 2) your growing but still limited grasp of this en Wikipedia's style of writing, grammar and citing sources.

I have grown to consider you an expert on the subjects of the Shoah and the Holocaust, so my advice to you would be

  • A) continue with what you are doing in terms of the WP:BRD cycle, which just means for you to sometimes Boldly edit, expect to be Reverted in some cases and then Discuss the situation on the talk page, and
  • B) when you are so inclined, discuss your edits on the talk page before you make them.

This encyclopedia is a collaboration of epic and sometimes staggering proportions, so the key to your success here will be your willingness and your ability to collaborate with other editors, to discuss with them the improvements you want to make and to listen to their responses with as much understanding as you have the strength, courage and energy to summon in yourself.

Consider every response, whether good or bad, to be a step on the ladder of your success here. Best to you!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  03:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! The Holocaust

You are just wonderful Paine!

I am passionated with Holocaust history, and I have dedicated almost 20 years of my life, teaching about it, doing research, training teachers ... I would like the public reading the Holocaust in Wiki ,to have a clear, readable, and reliable source of information.

I am now following your advices - to the letter! Have a wonderful day!Henia Perlman (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I shall, yes, I will have a very good day knowing that you and your expertise are here with us, Henia Perlman!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  15:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your talk page editor...

Isn't the header contrary to WP policy in that it exhorts people visiting your page to make Wikipedia theirs? Is that WP:OWN?

Regarding your talk page editor...

Isn't the header contrary to WP policy in that it exhorts people visiting your page to make Wikipedia theirs? Is that WP:OWN?68.234.100.60 (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paine_Ellsworth&oldid=783917843"