User talk: Paine Ellsworth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Giraffa camelopardalis angolensis (head).jpg
'Wikipedia is a community effort of staggering proportions!'
'they help us keep our minds sharp!'



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)

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)

Category:Redirects from Greek letter organization letters[edit]

Did some major checking and additions there. I used regex foo on Article title grep to get all articles which had names entire consisting of spelled out greek letters like "Alpha Phi Omega" and then the articles including redirects that were actually formed from greek letters like "ΑΦΩ" , copied them elsewhere, unpacked the actual greek letters into the spelled out versions and compared. There are still a few odd balls like Mu Sigma and Xi Xi which aren't related to Greek Letter Organizations at all.Naraht (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the info and for your help, Naraht!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  00:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Text modification[edit]

Hello Paine. I was inclined to copy edit {{R from alternative name}}, but do not have enough permission to edit that page. If you feel it is worthwhile, perhaps you will effect the change on my behalf? I feel the text which says:

If this redirect is an incorrect name for the target, then use {{R from incorrect name}} instead.

should be changed to say:

If this redirect is an incorrect name for the target, {{R from incorrect name}} should have been used instead.

My rationale is that the current verbiage assumes the choice of which Rcat to use has not been decided whereas its appearance on the redirect means {{R from alternative name}} has already been chosen, and used.

In that context, giving the bullet in present/future tense is perfectly actionable, but grammatically incorrect whereas giving it in past tense is both actionable, and correct grammatically. I look forward to your reply. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, John, the edit has been made. And thank you very much!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  08:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Beta Sigma Rho[edit]

The 1991 Baird's has about half a page on Beta Sigma Rho including a chapter list. I think there is probably enough for an article on its own. (And the 1967 Baird's (the last where it was active) has almost a full page. There are some other defunct (and merged) GLOs with pages.Naraht (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The sources are worthy so, if you think the notability requirement is met, then I would say go for it.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  09:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll let you know when User:Naraht/Beta_Sigma_Rho is ready for review.Naraht (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Naraht!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  03:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

WP redirect[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you reverted one of my edits relating to WP:WP. This is the third time that I've been reverted in the past two weeks (fourth, if you count [this] rather hysterical reaction to a policy explanation of why my version of a minor point was better), and usually they're pretty rude. So I appreciated the politeness of your edit summary. Thank you. Nevertheless, I think my version was better in this case as well. If you don't mind, I'd like to explain my reasons here. It may take a while, as I have work and other things to take care of. It also depends on whether I care enough to go through the procedures in case of opposition. Usually I don't, but in this case maybe, as I think we are probably confusing at least 10 users every day, and fixing things like that is one of the ways that I try to contribute. – Margin1522 (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Margin1522, for coming to my talk page! You may be correct in that the target you suggest, (which has been suggested before), is a more logical place for this redirect. However, if we look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:WP, we find hundreds of incoming links, most from user pages, that would be broken if the target is changed. When that many users use a shortcut and expect it to go to a certain page, then that certain page should not be altered. There is only one acceptable way to change this, and that is by nominating the redirect at RFD. If the target is changed, then a nominator should be prepared to go through all those incoming links and change them to the target.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  08:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
PS. I have added a hatnote at the redirect to explain the above. PS added by  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  08:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there are a lot of User Talk pages, 993 by my count, out of 1271 links. But as far as I can tell, they are all because about 12 years ago, around 2005, boilerplate Welcome messages contained links in the form The [[Wikipedia:WP|Wikipedia directory]] is also quite useful. That isn't even accurate. If we wanted to send them to a directory WP:DIR would be better. You could probably also argue that WP:About has a better claim to being a directory than a list of shortcuts, so my suggested change would actually improve those pages. Not that it matters, since it seems that most of them have been neither viewed nor edited in over 10 years except by bots. IMO a bigger problem is the other 278 links. There it seems that confusion reigns. Of the ones I looked at, a few used it in the proper sense of list of shortcuts, but more didn't. A common mistake was to assume that it meant the same as WP:RS. Or that it referred to Wikipedia itself. Or that it still referred to WikiProjects. Updating the links that use it properly could be done, assuming they aren't archived. But I don't know if it would be worthwhile or even possible to fix the mistakes, since sometimes it's not clear what they think it means. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Your argument isn't without its logic; however, I look at the WLH page and see mostly user talk pages. We use shortcuts on our talk pages so that other editors may click on them to see what we're talking about. So you retarget the shortcut and the other editor comes back and says, "Hey, that page you linked to has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You need to get your act together!" and we look like we don't know what we're doing. So I would still have to insist on usage of RFD to disposition the WP:WP shortcut if you still think it should be done.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, never mind. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
To Margin1522: It is important to me that you understand why I don't think the change should be made. You said: seems that most of them have been neither viewed nor edited in over 10 years except by bots.
I did some checking. You should browse some of the talk pages of the users who have the WP:WP shortcut on their user pages. Many of them are still active on their talk pages, and I readily found one who, though still quite active, had not had reason to change their user page since 2010. That user, and many others like them, have that shortcut on their user page and think it leads their readers to its present target. If you used a shortcut to a page on your user page, would you want another editor to just change the target of the shortcut you use?
Again, I have nothing against seeking the community's guidance at RFD, if that is your wish.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  17:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I would be happy to request that a bot go through all user pages on the Links Here list and change WP:WP to something more intelligible, say WP:SHORTCUTS. Or one of the other redirects to Wikipedia:Shortcut directory (there are a dozen of them). For the rest of links, I would be willing to go through them manually and do the same, meanwhile fixing [[WP:WP|Reliable source]] so that it reads [[WP:RS|Reliable source]], or [[WP:WP|WikiProject]]so that it reads [[WP:WikiProject]]. Look, I realize that this thing is an artifact from the earliest days of shortcuts on Wikipedia, when people would look at "WP" and think not "Wikipedia" but "Hey, that's two letters, it's a shortcut!", and think that if they typed it they would be taken not to information about Wikipedia but to information about shortcuts. That is no longer the case. Unlike in 2005, Wikipedia:Shortcut now has rules about naming and readability, and my opinion is, why do we have these rules if we're not going to follow them? OTOH, reading your reply, I realize that this knowledge about one of the very first WP shortcuts is ingrained, so that there isn't much chance it can be changed. So be it. There are other things to do. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Noted, and thank you Margin1522 for your consideration and conversation!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity[edit]


Articles that you have been involved in editing—Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity—have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Nessie (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Nessie!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  09:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment[edit]

A1 Houston Office Oil Traders on Monday.jpg

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

  Thank you very much, WikiEditCrunch, for the invitation!  Paine  


This[1] was a mistake, my apologies. I use AWB correcting the rcats simply for the convenience of the interface; I don't auto-skip or run any regexes or anything. I'm mainly working on getting the initialisms out of Category:Redirects from acronyms and finding portmanteaux. I run everything through one-by-one even if I use AWB. Pariah24 (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

That's good to hear, Pariah24! I was hoping your edit was just an "oops", and no apology necessary because believe me, I've made my share of oopses. It was surprising because your other edits I've seen have been really great for redirect categorization, so good in fact that I wanted to give you the Barnstar for your work, so that's on the way. Thank you for coming to my talk page and I hope you continue spreading the good on Wikipedia!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  10:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, also I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to make a separate rcat for other dialectical conventions like Sports in South Africa and Labor movement, or if {{R from modification}} is sufficient? Pariah24 (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The first one should be categorized with {{R from plural}} and {{R unprintworthy}} (in addition to {{R from mod}}). The second one should be tagged with {{R from move}}, {{R from alternative spelling}} and {{R printworthy}} (instead of {{R mod}}).  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The reason I ask is because Sports in South Africa is in reality an error, not a legitimate plural, in the context of British-style English. So it's sort of a special case, I was just pondering whether it deserves special categorization. Pariah24 (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Good point, Pariah24 – might be better, then, to call it {{R from American English}} along with R unprintworthy and R from modification. I see there is also {{R from British English}}, both of which I was unaware and will tweak them a bit. Thank you for the enlightenment!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  17:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I was also unaware. Probably because the creator didn't do any categorization. The navbox and template message page also need a overhaul to include the additional rcats people have created. Pariah24 (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have revived {{R from British English}} and {{R from American English}} from the dead (the code was screwed up, I don't think they were rendering at all) and created docs. Pariah24 (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png I rather doubt your doctors would recommend this, but it occurs to me that it could make a useful post-operative leak-detector, in case you foam in unexpected places ;) … Best wishes for a prompt recovery. —Odysseus1479 19:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, I must admit, Odysseus1479, I was not expecting that, and I'll try not to leak beer all over the place. Thank you very much!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017[edit]

Barophobia listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Barophobia. Since you had some involvement with the Barophobia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ... discospinster talk 20:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, discospinster!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  22:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Clinton Family Foundation listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Clinton Family Foundation. Since you had some involvement with the Clinton Family Foundation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Dr. Fleischman!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Precious two years![edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

To Gerda Arendt: thank you so much for remembering!  Paine  12:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
Hello, Paine Ellsworth.

I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Insertcleverphrasehere! I haven't done this for awhile, and yet I have spent some time in the past with the NewPagesFeed and have patrolled and marked many new pages. I shall ask for this very soon. Thanks again for your consideration!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  11:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello Paine Ellsworth. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex Shih (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Alex Shih!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  02:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for applying! Alex Shih (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 November 2017[edit]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for the edit of the psychology sidebar in the industrial/organizational psychology entry. Iss246 (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Pleasure! Paine  

Non-Admin closure[edit]

Regarding closure of the requested move of the article Ice cream headache, per WP:RMNAC, Any non-admin closure (NAC) must be explicitly declared with template {{RMnac}}placed directly after the reasoning for the close within the {{RM top}} template. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Thinker78! Additional information that supports page movers' (and my) use of {{subst:RMpmc}} may be found in the documentation for {{RMnac}}. Happy Holidays!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  20:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This discussion has been used in this Request for comment.

Can you please avoid adding pointless rcats to shortcuts like "MOS:WHATEVER"? From just one example:

  • MoS pages are not subpages, they're stand-alone guidelines that happen to have "/" in their names (with a handful of exceptions, like actual supplementary subpages of WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility).
  • They don't need to be categorized as redirs to project space. "WP:FOO" shortcuts are already in project space, and "MOS:" one all go there; it's implicit in their purpose, so tagging all several hundred of them is a waste of time and just bloats the rcat block. If there's some really important maint. reason to tag the "MOS:" ones with this, I could stop objecting to it, but I've been removing this rcat on sight in "MOS:" shortcuts for years, and no one has ever objected or reverted.
  • They also don't need to be rcat'ed as unprintworthy, since they're not used in mainspace. (That should be used on things like hatnote templates that cross-reference different articles because our content is meant to be reusable as-is on a per-article basis.)

As someone who does a lot of shortcut maintenance, it's a hassle to have a thick pile of rcats on these things that interfere with quickly assessing exactly what they are and why they exist. The only ones we really need are shortcut (for building lists of shortcuts), and either section or anchor as applicable (for maint work on anchors that are not section links, e.g. replacing markup like <span id="something"></span> and <span id="something" /> with {{anchor|something}}).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  00:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what gave you the idea that categorizing redirect shortcuts with appropriate rcats is "pointless". MOS shortcuts are in mainspace and therefore should definitely be sorted as "unprintworthy" so they don't appear in any "printable" versions of Wikipedia, such as any CD/DVD versions. What in the world makes you think that sorting those shortcuts to the Unprintworthy redirects category is not the right thing to do???  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Already said: they are not used in the text of articles, so they'll never appear and need to be suppressed in articles.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  10:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
As to using the rcat to project space, do you expect that editors are mind readers? How do you expect the MOS shortcuts, which are vivid WP:CNRs, to be detected? Category:Redirects to project space is most assuredly an appropriate category for these as much as it is for other CNRs.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
No editor who does not already know that "MOS:" goes to MoS pages in project space is competent yet to be doing any kind of maintenance, with redirects or otherwise. There is no need to "detect" MOS shortcuts since they all are of the same form, "MOS:" followed by something; and nothing else is of that form. If some day there's something notable in the real world named something like "MOS:FOO" then will we ever need to distinguish "MOS:" CNRs from something that isn't one. Unless that day comes, the "MOS:" shortcuts are auto-"detected", simply be being as they are.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  10:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
As for subpages, you haven't made a very strong case there, either, SMcCandlish. Just what exactly makes, say, WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters any different from WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility? They are both subpages of the MOS, and I see no difference. If as you say, "Capital letters" is stand-alone, then why is it on a subpage of the MOS instead of at WP:Capital letters? Both pages are about style, so both are subpages of the Manual of Style. It seems to me that you are wrong on all counts and should be soundly trouted for removing redirects from appropriate categories. Happy Holidays to you!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  07:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
The only "case" that needs to be "made" is that they have guideline tags on them. They are not subpages, they are guidelines that happen to have "/" in their names; please don't make me repeat myself. Do you think that the redirect WP:AC/DS is a subpage of the redirect WP:AC? It is not. It just happens to have "/" in its name. We chose to name the MoS pages this way rather than in the pattern of the NC pages (WP:Naming conventions (people), etc.) because parenthetic disambiguation was felt to be awkward or something. They could actually be moved to things like WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and so on, and these do exist as redirects. The actual subpages (e.g. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/CSS colors for text on white, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries/DD bug test cases, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial, maybe a few others) are not guidelines and are not tagged as guidelines (I actually did find one mistakenly tagged that way and fixed it; it's a {{Wikipedia how-to}}). I think you're confusing "subpage" as meaning "anything faintly like a hierarchical relationship", or "anything that contains a slash character", and it doesn't mean either of those things. A subpage is a dependent page such that were the parent page deleted the subpage would also be deleted, because it serves no purpose on its own. We could in fact delete the entire WP:Manual of Style page and it would have no effect on the other MoS guidelines, since the main MoS page is simply a summary of their most important and commonly needed points. PS: MOSCAPS isn't at WP:Capital letters because we agreed to group the style stuff under "Manual of Style" as a heading, exactly as all the NC pages start with "Naming conventions", and are not at names like "WP:People" for WP:Naming conventions (people). The super-short names are too ambiguous to make it clear what their scope is. We do in fact have multiple pages about capital letters and about people and about most things for which we have MoS or NC pages (e.g. WP:Naming conventions (capitalization) and WP:Manual of Style/Biographies, respectively; these could be more consistently named, but no one is losing sleep over it).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  10:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! because I'm beginning to understand your reasoning as it applies to the, shall I call them "pseudo"subpages? which just means there is no rcat for "redirects to pseudosubpages". That is one of three issues to which I'm warming up. So how do you suggest we resolve the other two issues? (unprintworthiness and CNR tracking of MOS shortcut redirects)?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Congratulations, SMcCandlish, for your decision to run! Just wanted you to know that these issues are not something that can't wait, so keep your "eyes on the prize" and may good fortune be your ally!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I guess the question is what utility is provided, what purpose is served, by {{R to project namespace}} and {{R unprintworthy}} on those particular shortcuts? The first is for things like Create an article – stuff that we expect users might want to type into the URL bar as a guess, without realizing WP has namespaces. Some other examples are things even experienced users might try, like List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, which is a topic that could in theory be notable and have an encyclopedia article but which isn't and doesn't (insufficient in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources), but which we do have an internal page about. Shortcuts like "MOS:CAPS" aren't either kind of case. And by virtue of what they are, we already know they're project-space redirs anyway. If some day there's something called "Mouse-Optional Synergistics: An Operating System", and its conventional acronym is "MOS:OS", then and probably only then would we have a need for that rcat on "MOS:FOO" shortcuts, to distinguish from real-world things that start with "MOS:".

The latter rcat is for redirs that we want to replace in displayed article text with the actual name of the article because they're "deficient" names in some way, in an encyclopedic sense; this is a pure maintenance category, for gnomes to use in fixing wording to make good sense in a printed article. There is no case in which something like "MOS:CAPS" or "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters" should appear in an actual article's text.* And Category:Redirects from shortcuts is already a subcat of Category:Unprintworthy redirects, so using {{R unprintworthy}} when {{R from shortcut}} is already used is redundant. [* In theory, there could be one someday: INDY RS could eventually write a whole bunch of stuff about WP's MoS and make it real-world notable. That's a bridge to cross if we come to it.]

So, it's not that these redir categorizations are "dead wrong" or whatever, it's just unnecessary, and both a waste of your editorial time to add these rcats on these shortcuts (and perhaps of other editors' time, in maintaining them later), as well as an annoyance to the actual maintainers of the MOS shortcuts (which may not even be plural – it may just be me!) by doubling the rcats per shortcut and slowing down the correction of things like an {{R to anchor}} needing to be changed to {{R to section}} or vice versa, and sometimes a concurrent update to the exact in-page target; aside from a missing {{R from shortcut}} on a few of them, that's all the maint they need.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  00:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

To SMcCandlish: I've thought a lot about my response to your question about utility, and I hope that you will approve and agree with me. In terms of the printability rcat, it's true that both {{R from shortcut}} and {{R to project page}} automatically sort mainspace redirects to the Unprintworthy redirects category. For many years I have practiced placing the {{R unprintworthy}} rcat on those redirects even though it is not needed functionally to sort them to the unprintworthy category. The reason I've always done this is for those editors, mostly inexperienced, who haven't set their "See hidden categories" preference. By applying the rcat to those redirects, editors are able to see that the redirects are sorted as unprintworty even if they can't see the categories at the bottom of the redirect page. It is also good in my opinion for editors who can see the categories at the bottom, because the rcat also functions as an information source for editors. I've always done this with printworthy redirects as well, for example, some rcats such as {{R with possibilities}} automatically populate the Printworthy redirects category, and yet I still tag those redirects with {{R printworthy}} to accomodate inexperienced editors, which I think helps them gain experience and knowledge about the "low-end" Wikipedia need to categorize redirects. I hope you agree that this is an important reason to use the printability rcats even when they are not needed to actually sort redirects to their categories, and I see no reason to start making exceptions for certain types of shortcut redirects.
The {{R to project page}} rcat is in a similar boat. There is no reason to make an exception for the MOS shortcut redirects. That rcat sorts to three categories, one for project-page redirects, one for cross-namespace redirects, and one for printability of mainspace redirects. Those are all tracking categories and are large enough to warrant bot tracking. Making an exception for the MOS shortcut redirects, which are clearly CNRs, would in effect defeat the purpose of the tracking that has been set up for many years.
I find that discussing this with you has been informative, and I certainly mean no disrespect when I say that either one of us could be wrong. If you find that you still cannot agree with me about the utility of using the project and printability rcats on the MOS shortcut redirects, then we should probably seek the opinions of other editors on the matter. Hope your holidays continue to be happy and healthy!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I always prefer a discussion over a squabble. :-) I'm not sure I follow the first of these points. If the editor is too new to know about "See hidden categories" why would they be experienced enough to know about unprintworthy redirect sorting? I'm not inclined to go editwar about these rcats, but would suggest opening a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorizing redirects, with a pointer to it from Wikipedia talk:Categorization, Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization, Wikipedia talk:Redirect, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect to get extra eyes and brains. We do actually permit some forms of redundant categorization, but they're limited; whether to treat this kind of maint categorization as diffusing or non-diffusing is probably significant enough it shouldn't be just between you and me. Heh. I can see that there is potential utility in doing it your way, but is the utility worth the hassle (i.e. the anti-utility for others)? From my personal perspective it's not, since I do most of the maint. relating the pseudo-namespace in question; I don't think any of the kinda-new editors you're seeking to help out here are involved in any way with editing "MOS:" shortcuts, or more than very rarely even the "WP:" and "WT:" ones for that matter. Given the different sorts of unprintworthy redirs and the large total number of them, there's a good chance that maintainers in general will object to having them in the main category for them as well diffused to one or more of its subcats, instead of treating the main one as a container cat.

I'll just concede on tagging the "MOS:" ones with {{R to project namespace}} (and have already started checking; have done all the ones at Special:PrefixIndex/MOS: that precede "A" in the alpha-order list already, doing the As next). While it seemed superfluous to me, you're correct that it creates a gap in "total redirs to project-space" and "total CNRs" tracking; I was arguing from an editorial not bot utility perspective (bots may not be coded to "know" what editors actually know about page names starting with "MOS:"). However, using that Rcat actually strengthens (at least marginally) the notion that {{R unprintworthy}} would be redundant. Anyway, {{R to project namespace}} should not be used on "WP:" or "WT:" redirs, since they're not CNRs; those have been made into actual aliases of "Wikipedia:" and "Wikipedia talk:", respectively. I'm sure you know that, but I do keep finding that Rcat on them, and it's just wrong, regardless who's putting them there.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  04:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

To SMcCandlish: to repeat... rcats do more than just sort redirects to categories. They provide information in their texts about the categorization, and again, this is a learning tool whether or not editors can see hidden categories. So it is just as important, for information and tracking purposes, to tag WP (not WT) shortcuts with the projectspace rcat so they will be tracked in that rcat's non-CNR Category:Redirects to Wikipedia project pages. That is specifically for redirects that are in projectspace that target projectspace pages, a long-standing tracking process. And you might be surprised that there are editors who want to help, but who thus far lack the information they need to help. That's why rcats are designed as learning tools in addition to their more functional sorting abilities. Thank you beyond words for your help in this!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  15:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't strenuously disagree with that, I just don't think it's sufficient in this case (with regard to the point I didn't concede on). I could be wrong, which is why I suggest an RfC or something. There are a lot of people way more particular than me and probably you about categorization (both against and for the position I've taken).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  16:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, and I shall prepare an RfC in the manner you suggested above. I know several editors who have been involved with redirect categorization, and while I have no idea how they would !vote, I shall ping them to make sure they're aware of the discussion. L8RG8R –  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Paine Ellsworth. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Note to myself... voted 6 December 2017.  Paine  

New Page Reviewer Newsletter[edit]

Hello Paine Ellsworth, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
  • Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

  • If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

  • A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
  • Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
  • The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Article categories used in redirects[edit]

Hi, Paine. It is my long-term understanding that article categories are generally inappropriate for redirect categorization. To that end, I found a batch of redirects that needed Rcats instead of ArticleCats, or that needed the ArticleCats removed. See this, for an example. With this undo, all of these article categories are going to go back to listing a bunch of redirects instead of listing articles:

So far, 14 of my tedious efforts have been undone. I was planning to do 28 more. Please advise. Ping me back. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Checkingfax. The guide you're looking for is at WP:RCAT#Article categories. If your category removals are to standard, be sure to cite the guideline in your edit summaries. I have to say that I am a fan of tagging mainspace redirects with content categories when appropriate; however, when it's not appropriate, I do remove them. Happy Holidays!  Paine  09:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
PS. Please also see this recent discussion, which may or may not apply directly. (PS left by  Paine  )

The Signpost: 18 December 2017[edit]

New Years new page backlog drive[edit]

Hello Paine Ellsworth, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

  • The total number of reviews completed for the month.
  • The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Move review for Sarah Huckabee Sanders[edit]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Jamesharrison2014, and Happy New Year to you and yours!  Paine  12:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Relist at 2017 washington train derailment[edit]

What's up with that relist? Already been relisted once and I don't think it really needs more discussion.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Galobtter – yes, I thought about that for quite a while, whether to close it or relist it. Presently notifying the WikiProjects to see if some consensus can be reached. Some RMs need more discussion than others. Happy New Year to you and yours!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  12:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Happy new year to you to! Anyhow, it'd be better to leave an explanation if relisting a discussion with a lot of participation. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree and will do so just as soon as I've notified the WPs.  Paine  12:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Debbie Rodriguez[edit]

Hallo, thanks for closing the move request but ...

  1. You moved the writer's page to Debbie Rodriguez (writer), while the whole idea was to move to her common name "Deborah": I've now managed to move it to Deborah Rodriguez (writer), as agreed.
  2. You haven't moved the disambiguation page Deborah Rodriguez (disambiguation), which needs to be at the base name Deborah Rodriguez - I can't do that one myself, so please do so. Thanks. PamD 16:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah sorry, didn't realise it was a work in progress! PamD 16:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
To PamD: no problemo. Workin' on it boss Face-smile.svg  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018[edit]

Kachin/jingpo Move request[edit]

Hi thank you for closing the recent request for move at

Unfortunately before the debate ended, the user who began it went ahead and did the move. Currently, clicking on Kachin People now redirects to Jingpo, a move that had no consensus, as seen in the admin closure of the topic. Unfortunately, This is impossible for a regular user like myself to revert as the move created redirects.

The original consensus was Kachin People and Jingpo people with Jingpo being a subset of Kachin. The recent move redirected Kachin people to Jingpo people and then moved the content of Kachin people to Kachin peoples. I cannot revert this change because Kachin people was turned into a disambiguation page. Could you revert this change, or give me suggestions on what to do? currently the move that was made without consensus is creating a encyclopedia that equates Kachin with Jingpo, something not proven by any sources at all and in contradiction to what the pages say. Thanks again for your time.Egaoblai (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

To Egaoblai: I'm pleasured to know that the outcome of the debate was in line with your opinion. I think this has all been resolved, because
  1. I reverted the undiscussed page move so that Kachin people is now the article title and is targeted by the Kachin peoples redirect, and
  2. I recently edited the Jingpo people article's lead section to better reflect the facts as you have presented them.
It is hoped that all this is in line with your opinion, as well. Thank you for coming to my talk page, and Happy Publishing!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


Hello Paine - as I applied a few unprintworthy tags the other day, I asked myself "why am I doing this" so I looked up WP:PRINTWORTHY expecting to find guidance, but found instead your essay. The essay has attracted a bit of discussion, but not much. I'm thinking of posing an RfC along the lines of:

Printworthiness/printability, by definition, is concerned with an aspiration to produce Wikipedia as a printed edition (or, by extension, another offline form) but as time goes by, the realisation of that aspiration might seem less and less likely. On the one hand, assigning “printworthy” or “unprintworthy” parameters to redirects gives us a potentially useful categorisation; on the other hand it takes time, and requirements for printworthy tags clutter instructions for use of the “R to…” templates. Should we delete the printworthy/unprintworthy templates, instructions for their use, and associated categories?

I'm expecting you to oppose the proposal as stated in this draft, of course, but my question for now is: what do you think about structure/form of the RfC? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

To Shhhnotsoloud: –  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  12:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
...printability, by definition, is concerned with an aspiration to produce Wikipedia as a printed edition
Actually, this is more than just an "aspiration", since Wikipedia has already produced offline or "printed" versions, and I've been told that even though a relatively small number of redirects have been tagged with {{R printworthy}} or {{R unprintworthy}}, the sorting has helped the 1.0 team to assemble CD/DVD versions. As for an Rfc, I don't know. Maybe it's time to shed more light on printability; however, I'm just not sure that the issue will attract that many editors. I could be wrong. As for structure and form of the Rfc, I have to admit that I haven't put very many Rfc's together, and yet oddly enough, I recently opened one in which printability was a significant issue. You'll find that debate at Wikipedia talk:Categorizing redirects#Request for comments on MoS shortcut redirect categorization. Hope this helps and Happy New Year to you and yours!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  12:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Paine. When I have some time I'll look up those links. Cheers! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Pleasure! Paine  
Good: I'm learning more about this. Another question please: why do the instructions at (for example) Template:R from other capitalisation direct the user to include {{R unprintworthy}} inside the rcat shell, when (it seems to me) pages tagged with {{R from other capitalisation}} are automatically included in Category:Unprintworthy redirects? By extension, could we harmlessly remove all instructions regarding printworthiness from all Rcats that automatically allocate a redirect as either printworthy or unprintworthy (I don't know how many that would be)? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Good question. For years I have added the printability rcats to redirects even when other rcats used to tag a redirect automatically populate either Category:Printworthy redirects or Category:Unprintworthy redirects. Why? It's because I consider the information text on rcats to be just as important, perhaps even a little more important, as the category sorts they make. With help from other editors, the rcat/category system has been built almost from scratch over the years, and we really didn't have information about why past editors had done this or done that. So we had to dig and dig to figure out why this was done and why that was done. That's why the information on rcats is important: because it lets other editors, who are just entering the area of redirect categorization, it lets them know what is being done and why. So yes, the printability rcats should be used with rcats that autosort to their printability categories. No, they are not needed in those cases to actually do any category sorting; however, they are still needed for the important job of letting editors know what's going on. There really is no reason to keep editors in the dark anymore, is there?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  19:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Time of life[edit]

Time is a connection point of life of an organism . From birth till death to the human body or any other organism's life cycle.It doesn't endb with death .Next birth continues or it may be connecting next level of life. Yashty (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

To Yashty: that does seem to be one of the most common beliefs among people around the world. What is it that determines whether one continues to the "next birth" or connects with the "next level of life", and what do those two phrases mean to you?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


Wishes to make the minds happy

Wish you Happy New Year 2018 to all fellow living beings . We are all very lucky and happy to live on the earth and enjoying it's resources. Mind is traveling to know the people The things which are visible and invisible making us happy. Examples- colours ,sea,kites, balloons,flying high ,dreams,pet animals etc Yashty (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


Genetics is a Greek term means "to generate".Genetics decode the secrets of our lives.So many living things in our mother land "Earth".The basic or primitive organism is the bacterium.For example Escherichia coli which has a simple genome but a flexible DNA material !.It undergoes changes in harsh environment to pleasant evironment.It conserves it's own structure and functions through genetic transfer.Simple man's genetic tool or a learner's friend. Yashty (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Belief in next birth[edit]

Next birth is the decision of soul to take a new form life.Continuing the life travel according to the unfulfilled wishes or duties. These words are just according to my perception. Yashty (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

To Yashty: Welcome to Wikipedia! I left a welcome box on your talk page, and to get you started, please read Wikipedia:User pages, which has useful information and links for you. Happy Publishing!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  19:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

MRT station moves[edit]

Thanks for all that! You missed this one, which has redirect in the way: Fort Canning MRT Station. Dicklyon (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It's a pleasure, Dicklyon! An editor reverted the rename, so I'm workin' on it.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  04:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I see. Bad move, that. Dicklyon (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
So... I only got one notification (thankfully) but are 34 edits really necessary/efficient to deal with an issue like that? Wouldn't AWB be more effective, or even just a simple find/replace? Seems excessive. I'm not criticizing necessarily, just thinking that there are more efficient ways of dealing with stuff like this. Like, genuinely curious as to your motivations. As I said, I only got one notification so from that perspective "who cares" Primefac (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
To Primefac: as with most things, I get more efficient as I go along. I'm used to template followup after page moves, and there are usually fewer redirects that need to be bypassed. I did get more efficient on the next template by making by my count 283 183 similar changes in only 11 edits. A cleanup scope of this magnitude doesn't happen to me everyday, but given a little time I do tend to adapt. Thank you very much for your concern!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  12:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018[edit]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter[edit]

Hello Paine Ellsworth, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
  • We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

  • We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
  • Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you help?[edit]

Hello PE. I saw this thread User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Polaris (UK nuclear programme) and thought you might be able to explain things. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 06:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

To MarnetteD: Hello, I see that BHG explained it well after you posted here. I also see that H7 has opened a Requested move at Talk:UK Polaris programme#Requested move 13 February 2018, and I expect that rename to be well-supported. Is there anything you think I need to add? It was a little surprising to see an editor (H7) who has been around so long who seemed to not grasp that category move templates go on categories and not on articles, but it looks like BHG has made things right. I'll be glad to help, so just let me know how I can.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  22:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
It looks like everything has been taken care of. I saw this shortly before heading off to saw some logs last night (zzzz) and thought things were a bit odd. I appreciate your taking a look at things AND for taking the time to leave this detailed reply. Many thanks and best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 23:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Pleasure! Paine  


Hello Paine. Thank you for taking the trouble to make {{Stnlnk}} more accurate and usable. I agree that the new ordering is better. I think you may have inadvertently replaced the old second preference from "p1 (p2) station" by a slightly different new third preference "p1 (p2 station)". This has the benefit of making {{Stnlnk|103rd|CTA}}103rd now link to 103rd (CTA station), but breaks usage such as {{Stnlnk|Ahlen|Westfalen}}Ahlen, which (I think) used to link to Ahlen (Westfalen) station. Is it better to include both? Thanks again, Certes (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a tricky situation, and I'll definitely look into it further. I used a navbar (see Template:Stnlnk/testcases) that I'd hoped covered most of the different case types, and I intend to continue to look for ways to improve the station link template. Thank you so much for your help with this!  Paine  12:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
To Certes: I just placed the previous code back into the sandbox and {{Stnlnk/sandbox|Ahlen|Westfalen}}Ahlen appears to have been a red link before my edit to the live template. {{Stnlnk/sandbox|103rd|CTA}}103rd seems to link to the same redirect as {{Stnlnk|103rd|CTA}}103rd. Am I missing something?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  13:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, Paine, you're absolutely right. The new version handles exactly the same cases as the old one but in a better order. (I reformatted a local copy of the template to make it legible, but made a typo in doing so.) Let's hope that one day all titles are in the One True Format and we don't need all this chicanery. Certes (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
To Certes: no problemo, 'twas an honest mistake. I still intend to keep working on the template using the navbar on the testcases page to see if I can bypass redirects and maybe even fix red links. It's a good and interesting template, but the order seems to be in need of some bringing up to date. Again, I appreciate any help and guidance you can provide!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  22:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
PS. Just so you know, I usually use my given name sig here on my talk page, but I have to use the full-name sig if I want the notification system to work. (PS left by Paine)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── To Certes: {{Stnlnk}} appears to be working much better now, see {{Closed stations Cumbria}}. I saved the red links (fixed one or two) at the last minute so editors will be able to see what articles may still need to be created. All the redirects have been bypassed either with the improvements to Stnlnk or minor fixes to the Closed stations Cumbria navbar. I was even able to convert the few direct wikilinks in the navbar to Stnlnk templates. When you get a chance, please check my work and let me know if I left anything out or forgot anything. And thanks again!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  10:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

That looks much better. (I'm particularly impressed with the way you've made the template legible without adding a dozen line feeds into all the articles, as seems to happen whenever I try that!) One question: when there's only one parameter, do we need to check for "Foo railway station" being a redirect? I'd have expected {{Stnlink|Ranipur}}Ranipur to link to the station, but it links to the town dab because Ranipur railway station is a redirect to the station's full name rather than the article title. Also in {{Closed stations Cumbria}}, I think the author was deliberately linking to the names of the closed railway lines, even though they don't have their own articles and their names redirect to the later railway which took them over. But overall it's a great improvement and so much easier to read. Thank you! Certes (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Certes! Let's see – it looks like a redirect check would be easy enough if necessary. Your example could go {{Stnlnk|Ranipur Riyasat||Ranipur}}Ranipur or {{Stnlnk|Ranipur Riyasat}}Ranipur Riyasat. If you think some links in the navbar should be restored to their original states, that's okay with me. I was no expert on the stations when I began, and while I've learned a few things, I'm still no expert. You do whatever you think is right. I hope editors will leave the readable code in the Stnlnk template as it is – I'm all for readability. Thanks again!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  11:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
What I'm suggesting is that we remove the existing redirect check. I think {{Stnlink|Ranipur}} should link to the station rather than the town dab, because the existence of the primary redirect shows that Ranipur Riyasat railway station is the primary topic for the term "Ranipur railway station". Another example: {{Stnlink|Tøyen}} sends me to the page for the town (Tøyen), because Tøyen railway station is not the article title but a redirect to Tøyen Station. Certes (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm even wondering whether {{Stnlink|Foo}} should create a link to Foo town at all, or whether it's better to make a redlink to the station. {{Closed stations Cumbria}} linked to Mr. F. W. Micklethwaite, even before your changes. I appreciate that it is useful for occasional cases such as Britomart Transport Centre, where the station article isn't called "...station". But I think we at least need a townlink=no stnonly=yes option, for times when leaving a redlink to Micklethwaite railway station is preferable to creating a blue link to an unrelated article. Certes (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I've had a look at {{Closed stations Cumbria}} and hope I've combined the best bits of the new and old revisions. Please feel free to revert if necessary. I think everything there is as good as I can make it, apart from Mr. Micklethwaite who should turn red if we can change {{Stnlink}}. Certes (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Your edits look good to me. I wondered about the two groups that were identically titled. Thank you for straightening that one out. I've put code in the sandbox that will just need a slight alteration in the navbar to make Micklethwaite a red link: {{Stnlnk/sandbox|Micklethwaite railway station||Micklethwaite}}Micklethwaite. See also the test cases at Template:Stnlnk/testcases#Template:Stnlnk/sandbox, which shows that the new code reduced "103rd" to a red link. I have to go, so I'll return to that issue later.  Paine  17:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I also have to go but I've tried an alternative version in the module sandbox. Currently bashing my head over why both versions insist on adding a redlink to Newtown (Cumbria) when it should be a redlink to Newtown railway station (Cumbria). Certes (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I've added some general cases to Template:Stnlnk/testcases. The sandbox now seems to be doing what I want and expect, which of course may not match what others want and expect. It uses the first pattern for which the page exists, or the first pattern (as a redlink) if none of the pages exists. An optional townlink=no stnonly=yes parameter prevents any page without "station" in the title from matching, which gives an alternative solution for Micklethwaite. Certes (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we do need stnonly=. Someone just made an innocent edit to List of closed railway stations in Britain: D-F (ironically replacing a broken Stnlnk call by plain text), and 37 links to dabs popped up. I've boldly started a discussion to see if we can get this change implemented. Certes (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2018[edit]

Wikidata-redirect template added[edit]

Hi Paine, just noticed this edit where {{Wikidata redirect}} was added to (8798) Tarantino, a secondary minor-planet redirect using a parenthetical notation. Is this edit just an anomaly or does it potentially apply to a much larger scope? Best, Rfassbind – talk 23:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

To Rfassbind: hi, I am working through Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item, and the MP redirects just happened to be some of the first in that category. Not sure about the size of the scope; but it's probably not very large. There is discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Template:Wikidata redirect on all MP#Rs with a Wikidata item? that may also be of interest.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
On closer inspection & further consideration, that WD discussion has been going on for months, {{Wikidata redirect}} isn't at TfD, that category appears more or less stable, the vast majority of applicable MP#Rs already have the template (only ~8 are missing it while the remaining 476 already have it), I don't see any problem with just finishing it off. One puzzling thing I see in Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item, is that it contains more List of minor planets/10001–10100-type pages than MP#Rs (955 vs. 484...).   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  02:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
To clarify, it doesn't seem worthwhile to place {{Wikidata redirect}} on List of minor planets #Rs. And a troubling thing I noticed was that all of those 8 had {{NASTRO comment|do-not-cat=yes}}, meaning they're not the 'primary' #R for the MP, adding (or at least exposing) yet another layer of maintenance to be performed.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  02:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
It's all pretty new. The category I work from was created on 10 Feb by TheDJ, and I'm not even sure how it's populated. Maybe TheDJ can shed some light on it for us?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  02:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
It's a Tracking category. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 19:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Penny for your thoughts on userspace template #Rs[edit]

Re these 2 RfDs.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tom, I've tagged those two with appropriate rcats. Amory makes a good point or two. Since userspace pages are usually left alone unless the specific user okays the edits/deletions, the tool should probably be set to exclude such redirects. And I can't help wondering if those users are okay with their subpages being discussed at RfD? I don't think I would be okay with one of my subpage redirects (and there are several) being taken to discussion. Just my take, as you asked.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  17:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Move request[edit]

I'd like to bring your attention to Talk:Trans-Canada Highway#Requested move 11 March 2018. Your grounds for moving Jungang Line to Jungang line is sufficient reason to move Trans-Canada Highway to Trans-Canada highway, that MOS on capitalisation is more important than the fact that "Trans-Canada Highway" is a proper name. 2Q (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

You may be correct, 2Q. So far, I've seen these decapitalization RMs apply to lines and stations in the US, Korea, Japan and so on. Not sure about Highway→highway. Let's wait and see.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  19:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Eventually, if this move happens, then Sunset Boulevard should be moved to Sunset boulevard, Picadilly Circus to Picadilly circus, etc. For full disclosure, I oppose this completely, because the rules of English regarding proper names should trump any arbitrary style decisions we make here - all parts of a proper name are to be capitalised, and "Highway" is part of the proper name "Trans-Canada Highway", and "Line" is part of the proper name "Jungang Line", etc. These absolutely should *not* be decapitalised... but if we decapitalise one, on some random criterion, then I'll argue that *all* should be decapitalised, for consistency's sake. 2Q (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Something new - I've just been made aware that Move review is a thing... I think I'm going to open one (unless you're willing to un-close and undo the move), because I don't believe that the discussion should have been closed yet in favour of a move - at best there is no consensus yet... which generally means things should stay where they are until consensus to move away from the long-standing title happens... 2Q (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, MR is an option, and remember... the only subject of move review is whether or not it was an acceptable close. It's not a place to rehash the RM discussion. Focus must be on the close itself.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  20:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. I do think the close was too soon - the discussion was still taking place, there was no consensus made yet, etc. 2Q (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
I saw that discussion had not stalled; however, I did not see it going anywhere either. The debate had been relisted twice, which should be uncommon as such debates should only last 7 days, at the most 14 days after one relisting. It's not "wrong" to relist twice, and I've even seen and done three relistings at rare times. This debate had the strength of guideline, naming convention and policy – those equal a powerful community consensus. Also, the close itself was guided by Wikipedia:Requested moves#Relisting, which states that after relisting, an RM debate can be closed at any time. Best to you and yours!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  21:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
The question that nobody has yet answered for me is what makes the proper name of a named railway line (or highway, or whatever) different from a name like "Sunset Boulevard". Why does "guideline, naming convention and policy" apply to one, seemingly at random, and not to the other? 2Q (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
The answer comes from numerous recent move requests along this same vein that resulted in renames of various railway line and station articles. Arguments have cited the guides mentioned above along with strong arguments that "line" and "station" are not "proper nouns" when qualifying any particular railway line nor railway station, not in the English language. To determine this, move requests have used reliable sources to support decapitalizations. Your recently opened request may rely on whether the "Highway" in "Trans-Canada Highway" is upper-cased in reliable sources. That's usually the first place to look – how are qualifiers like "street", "highway", "line", "station", etc., cased, upper- or lower-, in reliable sources.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  04:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

House of the Dead[edit]

Agree with the close.

But disagree with the policy! If you have time (it's longish) User:Andrewa/Let us abolish the whole concept of primary topic is now worth a read IMO, and still developing. Comments on its talk page more than welcome of course. Andrewa (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Andrewa – strange the way these things tilt now and again. Thank you for your essay and your pointer to it!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  04:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Romaine Brooks[edit]

There are several errors in this entry. First my book on Romaine Brooks: A life (University of Wisconsin 2016) cited in the footnotes several times but missing from the bibliography. Secondly: Romaine is not buried with Romaine. She is actually buried in the family plot in Nice. RomaineB (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

To RomaineB: welcome to Wikipedia! Not sure how I can help with this. The only reason I can see that Romaine Brooks: A Life is used only in the footnotes is the different way that it was included. Two ways to include references are both used, and one way requires a list with details. The way this book is included in the footnotes (with details) does not require inclusion in the references list. As for her interment, your claim would require reliable sourcing, especially since one source I've seen tells us she is interred in Paris.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  11:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thanks for the History section in Children in the military. And your other good work in these areas. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Pleasure! Paine  

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018[edit]

New Page Review Newsletter No.10[edit]

Hello Paine Ellsworth, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!


  • ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

  • Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

  • While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.


  • The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Death knight (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

How do the three opposes have stronger arguments than the six supports? One of them makes no sense at all and another was treating RM like AfD. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

To Xezbeth: hello – Supports 2 and 3 (nom being #1 support) were pretty much nothing rationales, so numerically at best there was a 4:3 support/oppose ratio. The first oppose seemed strong, and the other supports just seemed to attempt to counter the second oppose, which I also thought was strong. As strong as I thought they were, they were of course not strong enough to warrant a consensus to "not move"; however, in my opinion there was a fairly clear overall lack of consensus in the debate. How do you read it?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Yokohama FC[edit]

Hi Paine, do you know the reasons behind this edit? I am not sure I understand what is happening here. There are several of these requests at WP:RM right now, and I agree that the changes appear to be uncontroversial at first glance, but since there are a lot of transfusions of these and the redirects were changed from protected templates to other templates with similar names, I'm not sure quite what's going on and was unwilling to put them through myself. Can you explain it to me? Also pinging User:Gonta-Kun. Dekimasuよ! 19:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Dekimasu – at the time Gonta-Kun made that edit, it was to the redirect titled Template:Yokohama FC (and I would assume that Gonta-Kun thought it to be a better target). That page and it's history were then moved to my Draft:Move/ page, so I could move the contents and history of then Template:Yokohama F.C. to that title. My Draft:Move/ page was then moved back to the Template:Yokohama F.C. page as a broken redirect, which I fixed, and all without leaving redirects per the round-robin method. The technical and uncontroversial aspect of this particular page move falls due to the fact that the article for that template is titled Yokohama FC, a fairly stable title since 2016 following a bit of back and forth leading up to that date. Haven't yet peered into the other requests you mention; however, I think they should each be adjudged on their own merits.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  15:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Right, all of these have something technical involved. I do understand the moves you performed, but I am really asking about whether you understand Template:Fb team Yokohama FC, the previous target that's protected. The edit seems to have bypassed the protection, but I haven't been able to determine the purpose of that template itself. The other requests all involve the same sort of bypass. Pinging User:Gonta-Kun again; Gonta-san, if you can reply in either English or Japanese, I'd appreciate it. Dekimasuよ! 17:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
To Dekimasu: the {{Fb team Yokohama FC}} template is used meta-like in the {{Japanese Club Football}} navbar, but it does seem to be a round-a-bout way to link to the Yokohama FC article. I also would like to hear from Gonta-Kun about this interesting template arrangement.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  19:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Physical exercise[edit]

Hi Paine

Please could I ask you to look again at your close of the Physical exercise RM? While on the face of it the votes were split, there was a body of early votes which I think misunderstood the RM, thinking it was a primary topic debate (it's not, because Exercise already redirects here). After the relist, I put in a support vote, citing WP:COMMONANME and WP:CONCISE, and since then there hasn't been a substantial argument offered in opposition (discounting the vacuous "this is an exercise in futility"). In particular, I'd ask you to look at RedSlash's well argued support !vote, and the agreements that followed that. It looks like a fairly clear consensus to move to me. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

No problemo, Amakuru, I've reopened the RM and asked an admin to do the final close.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  10:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata-redirect template added to numerous minor-planet redirects[edit]

I'm struggling to understand why the template {{Wikidata-redirect}} has been added to numerous minor-planet redirects, such as here, since the template's documentation was quite puzzling to me. Could you plz tell me the basic idea? Also, has {{Wikidata-redirect}} been applied consistently to all minor-planet redirects, or is there still a need for followup edits? Thx, Rfassbind – talk 15:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, that rcat is added to any redirect that appears as a "Wikidata item" in the left margin under "Tools". I've also added it to several redirects that were not Wikidata items, however, they were very close to their target's Wikidata page. In those cases, the Wikidata Q-number of the target must be used as a first parameter. There is much about it that I don't understand, too, which is why the documentation needs improvement. For the basic idea, the creators and originators should be sought, because for the most part, I just apply what the creators give me, usually without question. It's good that you question it, though, and I would be glad to know what you find. I don't know if this rcat has been consistently used on all mp redirects, yet I would suspect that there might be a few that still need it. I could be wrong about that.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  00:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing[edit]


There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a pleasure, Whatamidoing (WMF), more than you know!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  18:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Portals[edit]

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, The Transhumanist, for letting me in on this! I'll be glad to check things out and help where I can.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  19:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Rogue (vagrant)[edit]

I'm not opposed to the general result of the recent move discussion, but I am mystified by the part about a "definite general agreement" to reject the proposed move. Of the comments dealing with the original proposal, I count one "oppose", one "support", and one "agnostic". That doesn't look very definite to me. Care to elaborate? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

You may be right. When I see several editors suggesting another name(s), I tend to count those rationales as in opposition to a page move as it has been proposed. Perhaps that's where we differ?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  05:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. It seems like a stretch to infer opposition where an editor has not commented on the specific proposal. Per the closing instructions, discussions like this one that have fractured into several possible titles should really result in "no consensus". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
You seem to require an editor to actually word their rationale to the effect, "I oppose a move to the requested title." On the other hand, when I see a rationale to the effect, "Support move to (another name)," I have always considered that to be an implied opposition to the requested title.
Usually when the outcome is "not moved", that is the end of it for at least a year or more. When you dig deeper into what I wrote, you will see that while I used the words "not moved", I also noted that there was "no consensus" to move to any other than the requested title. And I stated there is "no prejudice" to revisit the RM when the merge discussions have ended. So I do think that I was within the boundaries of the closing instructions. If anything, I was less strict and more discretionary than those instructions tell us to be. Your mileage may vary.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  04:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2018[edit]

Wikipedia:HUMOUR listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:HUMOUR. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:HUMOUR redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Thryduulf, for the heads-up!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018[edit]

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018[edit]

Hello Paine Ellsworth, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!


  • WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

  • Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

  • A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.


  • There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

  • Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

  • The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.


  • Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
  • The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much[edit]

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   08:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

I'm back[edit]

Sorry for the random year-long disappearance. Illness+wiki-stress+other real life issues conspired against me. Is there any specific redirect/redir-cat/redir-template work you feel could specifically use a helping hand at the moment, or is it still pretty much 'well there's about a hundred-thousand redirects to be templated and categorized for every user doing any redir work so it doesn't really matter where you start, it'll be a decade before we're done anyway?' :P AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Believe me, AddWittyNameHere, I do understand about the things that can keep us offline, and it's good to see you back! Nothing extra special going on so yes, you've pretty much nailed where we are. Hope to see you in the trenches!  Painius  put'r there  08:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! It's good to be back, for that matter. :) And all as usual, then. (I appear to be literally incapable of involving myself into anything maintenance/infrastructure/gnomish that's not either "couple hundred burst-edits across 1-2 days and we're done" or "eh...we've got what, less than a dozen folks doing this? Well, if we all knock out about 250 edits daily just on fixing this and absolutely nothing interferes, we might have it wrapped up by the end of this decade..." XD)

Merger discussion for EBU R128[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing—EBU R128—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mr X ☎️ 01:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

To Mr Xaero: thank you very much for letting me know!  Painius  put'r there  00:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Shinola Detroit[edit]

Greetings. Would you consider doing the histmerge suggested by AjaxSmack for edits up to 03:33, 11 March 2013? This was the genesis of the article currently at Shinola, which had to be recreated piecemeal starting in 2015. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I would love to be able to do that! However, a) I don't know how to merge page histories, and b) only admins can perform histmerges, and I'm not an admin. I have requested histmerges before, and you can do that at WP:HISTMERGE. There you will find an experienced admin to help you.  Painius  put'r there  21:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive[edit]

Hello Paine Ellsworth, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

  • As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
  • Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: 100 review coin, 250 review coin, 500 review coin, 1000 review certificate.
  • Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:R to monotypic taxon subcategories[edit]

I saw that someone has added a few subcategories to {{R to monotypic taxon}} much like the already-working spider/plant/fungi categories. Unfortunately, they're not actually in use because the template wasn't updated. I figure either the template should be updated or the categories deleted, what would you say is best here? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

That and {{R from monotypic taxon}} both look like WIPs to me. I want to go ahead and add the functionalities; however, maybe we should consult Peter coxhead and Ahecht, who might shed some light on the situation before I by any chance muck things up?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  07:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Makes sense to ask them, yea. Agree that they're very in-progress-y. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but having empty subcats sit there just 'cause no one has edited the relevant templates seems a not-very-useful way to go about it to me. XD AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Nathan Larson (political candidate)[edit]

I disagree with your reading of consensus, but I suppose I have no recourse? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yngvadottir – there seems to almost always be recourse when editors disagree. For RMs, the recourse would be to go to the closer's talk page and give reasons for perhaps reopening and relisting the debate. Failing that, there is always MRV.
I have looked again at the debate, and I come to the same conclusion, because while the numerical consensus is just a bit rough, supporters' args were in my opinion just a bit stronger. If you were to objectively close the debate, how would you close it and what rationale would you give?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  20:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm biased of course, and often puzzled by closers' rationales, but I see multiple editors presenting reasoned objections to the move, including one who raises a NOTBURO rationale that merits consideration, and an unwarranted accusation of bias that I believe I at least responded to adequately. I see no consensus either way. I would at least have left it for an admin, but as I say, I'm biased. I had good reason not to create the article at "politician". Yngvadottir (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Another closer might have seen it that way and called "no consensus" – it was that close. And looking back, I have to ask myself if I would allow my decision to be influenced by the subject's unusual (for a politician) background? Are there examples where other people have been called politicians even though they haven't yet attained office? Are there other examples on Wikipedia where people are disambiguated as "political candidate" because they haven't yet attained office? and so on. It's good to discuss these things. Now is there anything you would like me to do?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  04:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Just a thought...[edit]

You may want to register the username in your signature in the event that someone hijacks and/or registers that name themselves. Best beat vandalism/impersonation at the pass. Steel1943 (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks, Steel man!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  20:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 June 2018[edit]

Parameter name[edit]

Hello Paine, I was looking at some rcats today, and noticed that among them we are using two different parameter names for the category. For example, {{R from former name}} uses |main category= whereas {{R from short name}} uses |all category=. Is there a reason for having the two parameters? If so, when is the one used as well as the other? Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi John, and thank you for asking – the two parameters each determine the namespace(s) in which the rcat may be used. If the parameter is |main category=, then the rcat can only be used in the main, article namespace, and should not be used in any other namespaces. If the parameter is |all category=, then the rcat can be used in any namespace. There is more on this at Template:Redirect template#Parameters. You'll remember that {{Redirect template}} is the meta template used in all the rcats.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  18:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Paine, I appreciate that clarification. I did look at the documentation for {{Redirect template}}; noticing the namespace segregation intended. The actual thrust of my concern was spawned by the Rcat's behavior associated with which category parameter was being used.

Notice at Special:ExpandTemplates how {{R from short name}} when transcluded as input and subsequently expanded results in the "preview" section showing the hidden "R"-category where tagged pages are grouped. Yet when {{R from former name}} is expanded, no hidden categorization is shown. And, more importantly, when the "results" section is examined, the coding shows that no categorization for the rcat is rendering at all (for the given circumstances). If nothing else, it represents opportunities for maintenance categorization that are being missed, IMHO.

Before endeavoring those improvements, please tell me where the {{Redirect template}} generates Category:Printworthy redirects and Category:Unprintworthy redirects? I can't parse their origin anywhere within the template's coding. Thank you again.--John Cline (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why the category doesn't show for {{R from former name}} and yet does show for {{R from short name}}. The printworthiness categories appear to be generated by the module now, toward the end of the module code.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


... was this made? We (WikiProject University) have spent countless hours making sure that university navboxes are the colors of the school it's for. The color you chose was not even close to the school's colors providing false information. I'm just curious as to why. Corky 02:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

To Corky: my only defense is that I was thinking about accessibility issues and contrast. The dark green was hiding the icons in the below section. I have replaced that with the gold color found in the infobox:     . Is that acceptable?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  03:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, but nope, the gold background and White font is not compliant... and green on gold isn't compliant either. Personally, I see no need for the icons, but that's just my opinion. The standard is to have one background and one border color for the template. Corky 03:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay, the icons have been removed.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  04:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Help needed adding parameters to some high-profile templates![edit]

The categories, Category:Redirects from sort names and Category:Redirects from ambiguous sort names are growing unwieldy. I plan to subdivide them in two ways for increased searchability, by creating a set of subcategories Category:Redirects from sort names, A, Category:Redirects from sort names, B, Category:Redirects from sort names, C, etc., and by creating a set of subcategories Category:Redirects from sort names by article title, A, Category:Redirects from sort names by article title, B, Category:Redirects from sort names by article title, C. Under this scheme, Adams, Chester (a redirect to the article Chester Adams) would fall into Category:Redirects from sort names, A and Category:Redirects from sort names by article title, C, and Johnson, Frank (a redirect to the disambiguation page Frank Johnson) would fall into Category:Redirects from ambiguous sort names, J and Category:Redirects from ambiguous sort names by article title, F. These would ideally be implemented with parameters at the respective templates, so that the first would be implemented by adding {{R from sort name||A|C}}, and the second would be implemented by adding {{R from ambiguous sort name||J|F}}. I can create the 104 new categories and assign a bot to sort the ~90,000 sort name redirects into these subcategories. Is this reasonable doable? bd2412 T 15:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

To ­bd2412: I think it is. Let me massage it a bit.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  23:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll keep an eye out for your further thoughts. bd2412 T 23:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
To ­bd2412: okay, I think we're there. Just need to know if you still want all the redirects to populate the subcategories and the parent categories Redirects from sort names and Redirects from ambiguous sort names? or do you want those parents to act as container categories and hold only the subcategories without redirects?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  04:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
To ­bd2412: 'nother question... I see that you've indicated 2nd and 3rd parameters in both rcats; however, the first rcat does not have a 1st parameter because all sort names are printable. You've made the ambiguous sort name rcat with optional printability by use of the 1st parameter. So is it better for you for both rcats to place the new params in the 2nd and 3rd positions?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  05:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Ideally, I would like to depopulate the parent categories as the subcats are populated. That way, it will be obvious when new sort name redirects are created without the parameters. As for the parameter numbers, if the printworthy parameter is not needed, it would be best to get rid of it. I made the template for ambiguous redirects by copying the original, including that parameter (I think - I would not have added it sua sponte). bd2412 T 14:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
To ­bd2412: okay, I've made the rcats populate only the two categories (each) and not the parent container cats when parameters are filled. Also, if an editor forgets and only fills one parameter, the correct category will be populated along with the parent category, so the other parameter will be caught and filled. I'll make the ambiguous-sort rcat populate Category:Printworthy redirects since as far as I know, dab pages are not excluded from printed versions of Wikipedia, and imo sort names should be printable whether or not they redirect to dab pages. The rcats have been modified and tested. So mon creatur, while you create the categories and supply the parameters, I'll work on the template documentations.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  17:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks. I'm on the cat creation and population. bd2412 T 17:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Done. The supercategories are now completely diffused. Furthermore, along the way I found and fixed a variety of errors, including numerous redirects that were categorized as sortnames when they were merely alternative titles. All is well. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
To ­bd2412: yes, everytime I return to them I find some little thing that needs doing. Looks like everything's working as expected, so backpats all around!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  06:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Just to briefly reiterate what I wrote over at Template talk:R from Twitter username, thank you for your diligence in mulling over an issue, finding a rather obscure but nifty template to resolve it, and then applying it. And I'm really sorry you removed all those DEFAULTSORT keys by hand; you should have something beforehand, I could have done it in <10 minutes with AWB. Cheers for going the extra three miles! Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, now that I inspect more closely, it looks like you did use AWB for most of them, then switched to hand at some point. Might I ask why? Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Compassionate727, for the barnstar! All but about fifty were done with AWB and didn't take long. Had to manually do all the ones that were still enabled and working redirects for some reason. AWB would only handle correctly the ones that had been tagged with the deletion discussion notice and were therefore disabled, which were the vast majority of them.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  03:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)