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 Paine Ellsworth (talk | contribs) at 02:53, 31 August 2019 (update). 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!'
'PHILOSOPHIE!'


Just registered?

Learn quickly how to travel through the Wikipedia project!
Discussions and notifications...collapsed

Santiago Bernabéu

I don't see a consensus to move here. Since the comments by me and JHunterJ, there have been no further !votes or responses by the supporters. Why not run the proposed experiment to collect some hard data on primary usage? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi King of Hearts, and thank you for coming to my talk page! In that RM, I saw 3 support rationales (including the nom's) based on the COMMONNAME policy and only one oppose rationale (yours). Your argument was sound but not policy-based. So the hatnote I just placed near the top of the Santiago Bernabéu article should suffice. It seemed to me like a clear consensus to rename. Just to be careful, I ran the page views analysis to find that the stadium‍:‍person ratio was presently between 3:1 and 4:1. So it seems pretty clear that the consensus in the discussion was correct to want the pages renamed. Would you have preferred the stadium article to ultimately be renamed to "Santiago Bernabéu" instead? (I thought the name of that stadium included the proper noun "Stadium" as in "Estadio Santiago Bernabéu". Isn't that correct?) Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  08:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I concur with King of ♥. The argument that the person is primary over the much more well-known stadium was not well presented, and there's no consensus for that outcome. Reverting the move and running the "experiment" suggested by JHunterJ seems like the best way forward. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Amakuru, and here I thought the page views and the local consensus covered it. There is no primary topic per the page views, and the base name belongs to the person as their COMMONNAME. I see no harm in creating the redirects and running the experiment. If the stadium turns out to be the PTOPIC, then we can revisit the RM. No need to revert the page moves at this time, in my humble opinion. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  08:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been transferred to Talk:Santiago Bernabéu#Post move for further discussion. Please continue there. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  09:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Angel episode redirects to lists

A tag has been placed on Category:Angel episode redirects to lists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 18:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Liz, good to hear from you again.! Yes, those redirects are now sent to populate ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Angel (TV series) episode redirects to lists, so no contest. Best to you! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  19:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R from noun listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:R from noun. Since you had some involvement with the Template:R from noun redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Geolodus (talk) 08:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Geolodus, for this notification, and for the category one below, as well! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  13:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Redirects from nouns listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Category:Redirects from nouns. Since you had some involvement with the Category:Redirects from nouns redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Geolodus (talk) 08:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTRCAT

Hey Paine! Hope all is well. Any who, if you have some time, you may want to check out the section which WP:LISTRCAT redirects to, the aforementioned shortcut being a redirect I just created. The section seems a bit vague, but I believe that me undoing myself here is in compliance with that section, but I'm not sure. (In the example I provided, I removed the redirect from Category:2000 American television episodes since per WP:LISTRCAT, it seems that for redirects, any category that is neither a "redirect category" nor an in-universe category [in regards to fictional works] should not be used on redirects.) I figure you may be able to make more sense out of that than I can at the present moment. Cheers! Steel1943 (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Steel1943! Been thinking about this, and thank you for bringing it to my attention. I see down the page that, when appropriate, it's okay to use article categories on redirects, so this needs more thought as to what the section at WP:LISTRCAT is trying to accomplish. Let me massage it a bit more. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  02:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Steel1943: it takes a bit of re-reading, and I'm not real certain how to make WP:LISTRCAT clearer. Sounds like you did the right thing, though. And have you seen the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 18#Category:Middle-earth horses? That cat is one of the examples used at WP:LISTRCAT. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  16:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of what I was thinking too. What an odd passage ... with an indeterminate ability to be improved ... Steel1943 (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Erick

Hey there! Can you please move Hurricane Erick back to Hurricane Erick (2013) since this year's Erick has also intensified into a hurricane which makes the former no longer a primary topic. Thanks. CycloneYoris talk! 03:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, CycloneYoris! Looks as though that page has been moved by another editor. Best to you! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  17:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just noticed. But thanks anyway. CycloneYoris talk! 22:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pleasure! Paine  

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Viacom

When you turned Viacom from a redirect into a DAB page, you may have overlooked WP:FIXDABLINKS.

The change broke 2,086 links, which will have to be fixed manually. That is 19.8% of all the bad links to DAB pages as of 7 August 2019. Narky Blert (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Narky Blert: actually, when I began dablinking that page with AWB a few hours ago, there were more than 5,000 links that needed disambiguation, so I'm on it boss! Please don't respond for awhile, because AWB makes me stop, log out, log into WP to read my talk page msgs and won't let me make edits until I do. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  09:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Narky Blert: just completed the AWB and manual dabs of all articles, categories and file pages. Best to you! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  18:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Applause! 5000 is twice the size of the biggest problem I've seen.
A trick I've used, is to work between User:DPL bot runs, or to disable the {{dab}} tag until what-links-in is clean or nearly so in order to stop DPL bot from noticing. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The largest I've done was around 14,000 minus the many User, etc. links. Thanks for giving me the clap!>) Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  18:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, great work, thanks! 👏👏👏 — JFG talk 20:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pleasure! Paine  
Let us also take a moment to honour the high deeds of bd2412 who single-handedly corrected about 65,000 redirects during the New York Wars. — JFG talk 00:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that when you have a really large number of links to fix and don't want to be bothered with messages that interrupt AWB, you can move your talk page to a temporary title (e.g. User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Talk); editors looking to leave you a message will be redirected there, and probably won't even notice that it isn't your regular talk page title, and messages left will not disrupt your work flow. I would only caution that you have to be doubly careful that you don't make some mistake with AWB that has people trying to send you messages to stop what you're doing! bd2412 T 01:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  03:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In British English, no-one would thank you for giving them the clap... Narky Blert (talk) 06:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
lol! hence the old-fashioned, Usenetish smiley-wink in my response above after the word "clap" → !>) Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  06:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:R category with possibilities

Template:R category with possibilities has been nominated for merging with Template:R with possibilities. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, MJL, for this notification! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  00:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! Though, it was sort of just WP:Twinkle being twinkle. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the Talk:First Encirclement Campaign RM

It will be a lot easier for me to repair what was there than to start over with the silly form again. Is it OK if I revert your close and do that? Dicklyon (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see that's pretty much what you suggested. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Dicklyon: yes, it won't take much to make it right. It looks like one word was added to the redirects' target titles several years ago. Wasn't sure if you would want to add that word to your request's target titles, too. So I had to leave it up to you. Sorry to make a bit more work for you, but more than a dozen of your requests landed in the "Malformed requests" section of WP:RM because the current titles were redirects. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  03:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually quite a pain trying to change each item in two places after the substing. I hope the bot handles it right. Dicklyon (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. So far so good. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  03:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rcats for multiple errors

Hi Paine, I wanted to get your thoughts on how to apply Rcats to a redirect with multiple errors—say, spelling and capitalization errors on the same redirect. I've usually just slapped {{R unprintworthy}} on them and called it a day, though recently, I've tried documenting them all. You can see the latter approach at Bark The Polarbear. On one hand, it feels more useful than just saying "unprintworthy", but on the other, it feels wrong to put incorrect forms in the "correct" parameter (and if I put the correct form in that parameter, I'd be making multiple changes).

Hope that made sense. What do you think? --BDD (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To editor BDD: Always have used the correct form in all cases, so as not to confuse other editors who come across the redirect. See your example for my rendition. And thank you for asking! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  09:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great close

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

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

Talk:General American English#Requested move 2 August 2019

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

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

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

(talk page stalker) I do note that in Paine's closing remarks, they did note that they're open to an alternate title "while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. And if anyone objects to the closer's choice, they may make another move request immediately, hopefully leading the article to its final resting place.". I come across this sometimes in requested moves - I find a consensus to move the title away from the current title, but consensus isn't particularly clear on where to move it, so the closer picks from options presented, with no prejudice for going with one of the alternates. No comment on this RM in particular, except that I read through the discussion myself but Paine beat me to the close. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 01:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I fail to see that "consensus has rejected the former title". Nardog (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I noted that too ("no consensus for the title actually chosen" ... "may make another move request immediately"). Ideally, the closer should have summarised the cases for each of the contenders for the alternative title, and made a minimal statement for why one was chosen over others. I also think that immediate renominations are a bad idea. I don't think closers should be authorising immediate renominations when the notion of a follow-up RM was not in the discussion. Immediate renomiations are at the expense of the quality of the nomination statement. A considered new nomination needs a bit of breathing time for participants to digest what just happened. That said, I think "accent" is a subset of "English" and ""General American English" was what I supported, and was the only formal proposal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article is the accent, exclusive of syntax, morphology, spelling, etc., which is why (in my view) "General American English" is more ambiguous than "General American", the established term for the accent. Nardog (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion for how to best approach these sort of things is to NOT go for an immediate (<24 hours) renomination, but to give it about a week minimum, think over "General American English" versus "General American accent", also "General American English accent", and then make a carefully crafted new nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for tps'ing! P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 04:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, Nardog, and there is no need to apologize, instead thank you for coming to my talk page. In defense of my closing comment, the first time I read the discussion I saw no general agreement across the board. Then I decided to read it again, because something didn't seem quite right. While there was an obvious lack of agreement about what new name to use, my second reading found that 1) supporters' rationales were significantly stronger generally than opposers', and 2) responses of supporters to opposers (generally) were very effective rebuttals in my humble opinion. So as I began to see a definite need to do something with the page title, the result was my closing statement.
Red Slash is not the first to conflate CONCISE and PRECISE, I've been known to confuse those myself sometimes. The companies' names caught my eye early on, which is why I mentioned them. Just like the Mississippi River is often just called "the Mississippi", any one of those companies could be called just "General American", which sealed the title's ambiguity for me. Please keep in mind that I consider the additional "English" in the title to be nothing more than a natural disambiguator, and I disagree with Sangdeboeuf's edits to the lead. Like, say, Mercury (planet), the lead sentence does not begin "Mercury (planet) is the smallest and...". There was no need to alter the lead sentence of the GA article, or I would have done so. "English" only qualifies the GA title and is an unnecessary adjunct to the very beginning of the lead sentence.
Pardon the interruption, but it was not a conflation; I actually meant what I said (though I'm known to make mistakes!). The two-word title does not convey enough information to describe the topic and therefore fails not WP:PRECISE but WP:CONCISE (read the first sentence). Red Slash 18:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "General American accent" suggestion, while a contender for the title, was rejected for the reasons you set forth in the discussion. "I find 'General American accent' redundant, defying the 'conciseness' criterion." So if a choice had to be made, "English" was better than "accent" as a qualifier. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 02:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with you on the lead sentence. Per MoS, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence if possible, and if it can be accommodated in a natural way. The reason Mercury (planet) isn't in the lead sentence of that article is because it isn't a natural use of English. As you stated in your closing comment (thank you for that), General American English is in common usage according to reliable sources, so including it in the lead adds information that will be useful for readers. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see the sense in what you say and did, just don't see the actual need to include "English" in the first words of the lead sentence, since it was included later in the sentence in the American English link. Not a big deal, though. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 03:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I meant sorry in this sense because I was in disbelief. You found arguments on one side stronger, fine, but when the !votes are split precisely in half, that seems like good reason to !vote yourself or relist, not to close in favor of that side.
The Mississippi River is not an appropriate comparison because there is no other thing known simply as "General American" that has an article on this site. The companies are only partial matches, so there is no need for a natural disambiguator in the first place.
I said "General American accent" would at least make more sense than the proposed name (emphasis added). I find "General American English" more ambiguous than "General American" or "General American accent", defying Precision, and it also defies Conciseness when the article only discusses the accent.
Anyway, I take your response as an indication of no intention to revise the outcome, so I'm filing for a move review: Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 August#General American English. Nardog (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the company names are not ptm's any more than "Mississippi River" is a ptm on the Mississippi (disambiguation) page. They can all be referred to as just "General American" in the same manner as the river can be referred to as just "the Mississippi". And nobody has asked me to revise the outcome, but I guess it's too late now. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 04:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So you think a hatnote should be added? Nardog (talk) 05:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to look at it more closely; however, my shoot-from-the-hip thought is to create a dab page at the "General American" title. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 05:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nardog: if the article truly only discusses the accent, then it doesn't actually reflect the sources and should be amended. I note that three sources cited just in the lead section discuss General American (English) as a dialect, whether genuine or specious (Kövecses 2000, Labov et al. 2006, Van Riper 1973/2014). More are given on the talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spectacular close

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

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

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paine_Ellsworth&oldid=913286196"