Jump to content

User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

Autopatrolled

Hi Paine Ellsworth, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Biblioworm 02:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Biblioworm! And congrats on your successful RfA! Be prosperous! Paine  02:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Many thanks, Biblioworm! Those pending changes are pretty nifty and enjoyable editing! Be prosperous! Paine  11:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Rollback

The trifecta. Slapping the template on you doesn't feel right, so I'll just paste the main points:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, let me or any other admin know and we'll remove it for you. Cheers. — Earwig talk 06:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Earwig! Happy holidays! Paine  06:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

5 Million: We celebrate your contribution

We couldn't have done it without you
Well, maybe. Eventually. But the encyclopedia would not be as good.

Celebrate 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Plastic mouse is still mouse.

For all your good work with responding to protected-template edit requests, have this cat. Me-- ROAR! [Golly, they really ought to wipe their desk, whoever they are.] Alakzi (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I consider this high praise coming from you, Alakzi! Thank you beyond words! (and my own loving "Kitten Face" thanks you, too!)  Paine  18:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Precious

mindfulness

Thank you for quality contributions in the field of astronomy, citizen of the world, for gnomish ambition, for your heartfelt welcoming quoting darkness and dream, for inspiring thoughts such as Respect, and for noticing darkness and dream, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

Thank you, Gerda! Seems like every time I read one of your posts I encounter your "words of reason and trust". Thank you for that, too! Be prosperous! Paine  09:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
You probably didn't read my talk then, in 2013 or now, - felt at home when reading your comment about age and health. Working on wake up, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
ps: I banned the health stuff to the archive, but kept my dangerous dreams and "I have a lot of compassion for Alakzi - as for other victims - but no intention to marry". (13 August) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
"Ahhh, Bach" (from M*A*S*H) and "the sleeper will awaken" (from Dune). Forgive the TV and film references – they just popped into my mind as I read your message. I still hope that Alakzi will bounce back. Too good an editor to lose. Oh how many times I have felt the sting of the negative passions of good Wikipedians. But "retired" is not in my personal dictionary!  Paine  11:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Alakzi returned three times, always to my delight. Is "vanished" in your dictionary? See also. Just for curiosity: what do you get first when you "google" the name? (I would like to find out if you get the same result as I do.) Look for the name on my talk: excellent reading, many times. Caution: dangerous thoughts, imagine: amnesty. I am grateful to have had the chance and pleasure. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Re: "vanished"... yes, and I suppose there are several reasons for WPNs to just vanish; however, I don't "see" myself vanishing until I'm past caring. First up on Google is Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Alakzi. Thank you, again, Gerda!  Paine  15:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanksgiving
Shout for joy
Thank you, and have a sweet dish with your turkey, right from the cabal of the outcasts ;) - Feel free to post requests for improvements at their WP:QAIPOST. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please join the conversation

You are invited to a discussion at MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr to help determine consensus in regard to whether or not to use the {{This is a redirect}} (shortcut is "Redr") template to apply {{R from move}} automatically to redirects that are left behind from page moves. Happy holidays! Paine  16:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Red-letters banner on new template

Hi there, maybe you know the answer to this one, if you can please spare a minute: I've just created the Template:R from US military aircraft designator, which I hope makes enough sense to be kept, but it comes up with a big red-letter banner on it ("The above rcat should only be used to categorize redirects that are in the main namespace") which I'm not sure where it comes from and how to get rid of it. I used Template:R from IMO number as a starting point for my template and cannot figure out why on earth that template is normal and mine has the banner. Thanks in advance for any explanation. --Deeday-UK (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You've done a very good job on that one, Deeday-UK! And yes, there is a subtle step that must be taken to get rid of the error box. It is described in the documentation of {{This is a redirect/rcat}}. I've made the necessary addition for you, so the new rcat should now appear normal. If it doesn't, then be sure to purge your cache to make the error box disappear. I'm working on a simpler solution for this. Happy holidays! Paine  01:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

To editor Deeday-UK: I want to let you know that I'm very grateful to you for inspiring me to return to my work on this situation with mainspace rcats, such as the one you recently created. I found a way to simplify {{Incorrect redirect template}} so there is no longer a need to add newly created rcats to a switch inside the code. Can't thank you enough! Happy holidays! Paine  10:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Well done for making the incorrect redirect template maintenance-free, and happy holidays to you too. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

{R from incorrect punctuation} vs. {R from mod}

Re: Mosin-Nagant

You removed the {R from you incorrect punctuation} tag. I had placed because I don't think "modification" covers it. "Modification" could be correct or incorrect. And when I put a "misspelling" tag on it that got reverted too because it wasn't severe enough to warrant being called a "misspelling". What should I do? I want to tag things like this with something that makes it clear they shouldn't be linked to. Thanks. Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

To editor Faceless Enemy: I do understand how frustrating it can be sometimes. In this case, the fact is that {{R from incorrect punctuation}} is a redirect to the main template {{R from modification}}, so either way the redirect will be sorted to the Category:Redirects from modifications. It has been consensus for a long time to treat the redirects that were incorrectly hyphenated instead of endashed as "modifications of their target page". These redirects are important for searches because people will use the hyphen from their keyboard to search for the subject of the target article. If you are thinking about a separate rcat template that covers only incorrect punctuation, then you might want to bring that up on the talk page at Template talk:R from modification to see if other editors share your thoughts. Happy holidays! Paine  17:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Seasons' greetings Paine!

Steel1943 (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Steel1943/HappyHolidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Paine, hope your holidays are happy, and a happy new year! Steel1943 (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Right back atcha, Steel Man! U da Bomb! Happy holidays! Paine  17:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Shortcuts

Shortcuts exist to make referring to pages easier in discussions, typing them into the URL bar faster, and easier to remember personally, not for making links in WP:POLICY pages obtuse and less transparent. And WP:NOTBROKEN is not a revert rationale unless the change was worse than what was there before; the moment you reverted me on that you were violating the NOTBROKEN principle yourself.  :-) The actual message of NOTBROKEN is that many redirects are useful as such and should not be bypassed just for the sake of bypassing them. When the real title of the page, or even another redirect to it, is more useful in the context than the redirect that was originally selected, it's entirely routine to bypass or replace the redirect in question.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Happy New Year! Paine  19:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a redirect/rcat

Did a discussion take place regarding the application of {{This is a redirect/rcat}} in the manner in which it currently displays (e.g. [1]) to Rcat Templates? Hope the new year is going well for you, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

That was a project that was on my list of things to do that I finished recently. For a long time I've thought that editors should be able to see both types of rcat application, {{This is a redirect}} and individual, on each rcat page. As you may know, before the inclusion of the /rcat template, all the rcats showed only the individual application. Over time and with help from other editors, I was able to introduce the /rcat template with a few flaws, and yet it viably did its job as long as I closely monitored newly created, mainspace-only rcats, which produced errors that editors found very difficult to fix. I was able to deal with those errors. And now, as you can see by the discussion linked above, the final flaws have been eliminated. I am glad to hear any suggestions that may improve the /rcat template and the rcats themselves. Of course they are all on my watchlist, so I'm usually able to respond to rcat talk page requests/suggestions. Thank you, Godsy, for your well wishes, and Happy New Year to you also!  Paine  21:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

What's up?

Hi,what's up? Just testing my first conversation in Wikipedia Md Alamin Bijoy (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Md Alamin Bijoy, what's up with you? Good news! Your test worked and you are very welcome to Wikipedia! You are doing very well so far. You remembered to use your sig, and many new editors forget that. Here's a little tip: when you open a new discussion on a talk page, click the "New section" link at the top of the page. That opens the edit screen and reminds us to include a section header (Subject/headline). As you can see, that can also be accomplished directly as I have done above by using the == (section header) == syntax. Keep up the good work, and please don't be discouraged by warning posts like the ones you received on your talk page. I got a few of those myself when I first started to edit this encyclopedia. It's a great learning process, and you can be a real boon to the project if you are willing to keep at it. Have a Happy New Year, and don't hesitate to ask questions when you want answers!  Paine  09:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Recreated {j} as template

Hey, Wikid77 (talk) here. Thanks for discussing the RfD of {j}, as I had no idea it was used by 1,000 editors (not all 1,100+ pages were my edits). I have recreated the redirect {j} shortcut now as separate Template:J, designed as a simple shortcut for dyslexic users, more to avoid " " inverted as "nsbp" (or "nbps") but also shorter than "{nowrap}". The new template doc-page explains this:

  • The Template:J ("j" meaning "join") is used to join text on one line, as non-wrapped text. The short name as {{j}} has been used since 2010 for quick entry, instead of the short markup " " which is prone to typing inverted letters ("nsbp") especially by dyslexic users, and would appear as literal letters when misspelled in the text of a page. Also, the similar template {{nowrap}} is prone to interleaved spellings (such as "norwap" or "nowarp"), and so {j} has improved accessibility for such users to edit wikitext more easily.

As the author of the prior redirect {j}, then I imagined to be notified about the TfD (was not) when I was very active on WP at the time, but Jimp has taken a mission to delete many templates I have developed over the years, without discussing with me first. Anyway, sorry not there at RfD to explain "j" was a very short alternative to "nbsp" for dyslexic users (or mobile phone edits), and even name "nw" risks "wn" when used dozens of times per page (or seems very "northwest" [nw] to many users). In the U.S. pages, the hyphen roadnames ("I-95" or "I-22") also need short nowrapping, and so {j} was perfect for all uses. The one drawback was explaining how "j" means "join on one line" now easily shown in the new separate doc-page. Thanks again for your time spent researching these issues. I learned a lot from you in reading the RfD. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Pleasure! Paine  

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

To editor Guy Macon: Thank you very much for this notification! – Are you worth it? Yes! you are! Paine  22:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey Paine I just found this new site and thought you might enjoy it or perhaps participating in it. I'll put it on your aol addy, as links don't seem to work on this Wiki thingy.

Bill(oc)

Hey Bill
That's a blog reminiscent of alt.astronomy (waxing nostalgic).
Just so you'll know, a link to an external site like that can be done three ways on Wikipedia, for example:
the bare URL, https://www.reddit.com/r/holofractal, renders
https://www.reddit.com/r/holofractal
the use of a bracket at each end, [https://www.reddit.com/r/holofractal], renders
[2]
and the use of a bracket with text, [https://www.reddit.com/r/holofractal external link], renders
external link
Pretty easy stuff, and different from internal links where there are two brackets at each end and a pipe (|) separator instead of a space when needed such as
[[User talk:Gondoofus|your talk page]], which renders
your talk page
Sent an email response to you.  Paine  03:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey Paine
I guess you don't check your aol box very often. I sent you another email.
Had a hellava time tryin' to make a new post here. Found out it's possible to modify/edit this post. Maybe you'll see it. Gondoofus (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Bill(oc)
Bill
Had some computer problems lately. Couple of things: To edit a section all you have to do is to click on "edit" next to the header, which in this case is "External link". It is customary not to erase anything that has already been posted to the section. Just add new text at the bottom of the section. Also, try to remember not to indent with a tab or spaces when you start to type. With this software, that causes the text to be enclosed in a box and makes it difficult to follow your thoughts. Just begin at the left margin or use colons to indent, as I did with this response. If you click the "Show preview" button you will see what your post will look like before you save it. I sent another email to you.  Be prosperous! Paine  17:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Rcats on Super Mario (series)

What was the reason for adding the explicit "unprintworthy" Rcat here, given that R from unnecessary disambiguation already categorizes as unprintworthy? (I have no objection to the use of {{redr}}.) --SoledadKabocha (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see the Printworthiness note in the documentation. The listing in the mbox will not appear unless the {{R unprintworthy}} is called within the Redr template. A while ago, I had programmed Redr to automate this, but an editor complained about the superfluous repetition, which I agreed could be very distracting in many cases.  Be prosperous! Paine  02:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Question about redirect templates

Why isn't a template like {{R from song}} a wrapper for {{This is a redirect|from song}}? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me, Martin, I do not understand your question. R from song is an rcat, while This is a redirect is a template that "wraps" from 1 to 7 rcats. How would one rcat be a wrapper for a template that can apply the rcat within it?  Paine  17:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Could you not replace the contents of Template:R from song with simply {{This is a redirect|from song}}, so that when someone types {{R from song}} it has the same effect as typing {{This is a redirect|from song}}? Does the former have any additional functionality from the latter? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the functionalities of the two templates are very different. R from song is a basic redirect category (rcat) template that contains the code to categorize redirects to Category:Redirects from songs. The This is a redirect template's code calls from 1 to 7 basic rcat templates, in this case either by {{This is a redirect|R from song}} or {{This is a redirect|from song}}. If we were to replace the code in {{R from song}} as you suggest, then there would be no code to actually categorize a redirect to the Redirects from songs category.  Paine  22:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I have just replaced {{R from song}} with {{This is a redirect|from song}} on the redirect Kiss It Better (Rihanna song) and it does still categorise into Category:Redirects from songs. And it has a few extra categories like Category:Protected redirects which is a bonus. So I still can't see what the former template achieves which the latter doesn't. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
When the redirect was created and the individual rcat, R from song, was applied, that was all that was needed to categorize the redirect to Category:Redirects from songs and Category:Unprintworthy redirects. That is because the code to do that is within the R from song rcat template. When you applied the This is a redirect template with R from song within it, the two basic categories did not change. What did change was the way the text was formatted on the redirect and, of course, the added benefit of automated protection sensing. The differences are described pretty well at {{This is a redirect/Comparison}}. And again, lest we forget, more rcats can be added very easily within the This is a redirect template, for example, if you were to add {{R unprintworthy}} to the redirect you created above. Then it would appear in the code as {{this is a redirect|from song|unprintworthy}}. If this is done, then the redirect is not only categorized as "unprintworthy", it will also show the text of the R unprintworthy rcat template in the Mbox.  Paine  23:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay I understand now. Judging from your comments above and on Template:This is a redirect/Comparison, you believe that {{This is a redirect|from song}} is superior to {{R from song}} for the following reasons:

  • Automatic protection detection
  • Ability to add more rcats just by adding additional parameters

So do you agree that it would be good if we were able to rewrite the templates so that typing {{R from song}} had the same effect as typing {{This is a redirect|from song}}? How we do that is a different matter because I now understand that we can't just make the former as a wrapper for the latter without some major code changes! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Martin, since I began work on these rcats years ago, several more editors have become involved as can be seen on the rcats' talk pages and at Template talk:This is a redirect. Right now, there is no consensus as to whether to use the This is a redirect exclusively or to apply individual rcats exclusively. So if we were to find a way to apply the This is a redirect code in each individual rcat, we would first need to seek consensus to make the change, because then, each and every redirect that now has individual rcats would look very different. If there are two or three individual rcats on a redirect, then after the change there would be two or three mboxes, each representing only one rcat. So no, I would have to say that all things considered, it would not be good to rewrite the rcat templates so that typing, say, {{R from song}} would have the same effect as typing {{This is a redirect|from song}}. To be clear, say a redirect is now tagged in the following manner:
While there would be no actual change to the redirect itself, a change to those rcats like you suggest would effectively make the redirect page look like the following:
I don't think we could get that past consensus. And there are other advantages to the This is a redirect usage that are described on the /doc page. The e# parameters can be used to give an explanation for a given rcat within the This is a redirect template. If an editor wants to explain something about the third rcat used, they can use |e3= to do so. And a general topnote or hatnote can be added with the |e0= parameter. To illustrate this, I've added a |e1= param to the last mbox above. These explanation parameters are unavailable when rcats are applied individually.  Paine  18:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I just had another rather unsettling thought, Martin. There are nearly 70,000 usages of the This is a redirect template, now. The above three rcats, if used in that template would look like:
Now suppose we would implement your suggestion. We already can see above how it would appear on redirects that have rcats applied individually. Now let's look at those redirects that already have the This is a redirect template on them. Using the above three rcats, that would look like:

{{This is a redirect|This is a redirect|without mention|This is a redirect|from song|This is a redirect|unprintworthy}}

Template loops, to the tune of many times the nearly 70,000, would be the undesired result.  Paine  17:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
(Please let me know when you've seen this, Martin, so I can fix the template loops.)  Paine  17:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Martin, I disabled the template loops – if you need to actually see them, you can do so by removing the:
from the final This is a redirect template above. I suggest you just preview them, because as you know, if you save the edit you will once again engage the template loops.  Assume good faith! Paine  03:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Paine Ellsworth/Wikipedia

Would you consider adding a humor tag or the like to your page User:Paine Ellsworth/Wikipedia? On its face, it seems like a userspace copy of Wikipedia unless you're actually using that for draft work for the mainspace article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done.  Be prosperous! Paine  15:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Paine

Sorry to butt in. I'm still next to clueless on using this Wiki thing. I sent a coupla e-mails to your aol box. If you'd rather I not send any more stuff, just say the word and I'll bug off. Gondoofus (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Bill

To editor Gondoofus: Please, Bill, don't think you're "buttin' in". It's great to hear from you! I sent you two emails – didn't you get them?  Paine  16:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

No, never got 'em. Don't know why, unless they were sent to the old sbcglobal addy.

I sent a test message on my gmail business line to see if maybe a return message will come thru using that line.

Gondoofus (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Bill

Redirects to Nepali-language terms listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Redirects to Nepali-language terms. Since you had some involvement with the Redirects to Nepali-language terms redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Redirects from initialisms

Hi, Paine. You thanked me for revising my two-year-old note Category talk:Redirects from initialisms#Acronyms and initialisms, which remains the last item on that page, with no replies. You may be interested to know that I was prompted by this appeal on my talk page, from editor LeadSongDog who is unfamiliar to me, User talk:P64#Category_talk:Redirects_from_initialisms.

--P64 (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, P64 – LeadSongDog did raise the issue again on the project talk page. It seems that when editors take time to get a good look at the situation, they understandably become intimidated by the amount of work that may be involved. And since we are all involved in other things, it is difficult to see ourselves dropping everything to work on making things right. It's a tough nut to crack.  Stick to sources! Paine  00:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thanks --P64 (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Pleasure! Paine  

stephenfollows.com source

Hi Paine. I am fine with this revert. That arose out of a discussion at RSN here - more voices there would be useful, if you would like to join. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Jytdog, please believe that I tried to be very careful before I restored the Follows reference citation. I already know you to be one of the better editors on the project, so I seldom question any edit you make. I checked out the Follows web page merely out of curiosity and found, as you did, that he is an expert in the industry who is taken seriously by other reliable sources. Speaking moreso as a reader rather than as an editor, the added information about the salary-increase inconsistency appears to be helpful to know. I've given my 2 cents at the RS noticeboard, so we'll see how it goes. If consensus deems the Follows website unreliable as a source, then I am happy to go along with that. Best of everything to you and yours!  Stick to sources! Paine  22:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Sounds great, thanks Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Pleasure! Paine  

Hi

Hi, Paine Ellsworth. I want to use multiple authors in the {{backwardscopy}} template. The problem I am having is the template allows up to three articles per template, but only one author per article. I got it to show multiple authors, but then I broke it to handle multiple articles, so I rolled back my edits even though I did sandbox testing first. Here is what I want to do: 

{{Backwardscopy
|author = Surhone, L. M.
|author2 = Timpledon, M. T.
|author3 = Marseken, S. F.
|year = 2010
|title = Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price: Robert Greenwald, documentary film, criticism of Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart Watch
|org = Betascript Publishing
|comments = {{OCLC|698261486}}, ISBN 9786131213991.
|bot=LivingBot
}}

Before, some editors just put all the authors under one author=, but that throws a CS1 multiple authors error. Please help me to figure this out, and make it a teaching moment. Thank you. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Checkingfax, and thank you for asking! Forgive me, as the past several days have been very busy for me offline. I will look into this to see if the template can accomplish what you want to do. A new template may be needed – we'll see.  Stick to sources! Paine  22:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
To editor Checkingfax: I added a new parameter to the template sandbox, "authorlist" (also authorlist2 and authorlist3). In the case you previewed above, it would go like this:
{{Backwardscopy
|authorlist = Surhone, L. M.; Timpledon, M. T.; Marseken, S. F.
|year = 2010
|title = Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price: Robert Greenwald, documentary film, criticism of Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart Watch
|org = Betascript Publishing
|comments = {{OCLC|698261486}}, ISBN 9786131213991.
|bot=LivingBot
}}
...which will appear as: (disabled for future sandbox variations)
{{Backwardscopy/sandbox}}
Note that this does not throw a CS1 maintenance error. Also note that more testing of the sandbox version may be needed until you are completely satisfied. Let me know if more is needed.  Stick to sources! Paine  23:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Paine. I could not get it to break with sandbox tests so I went live. I did not include the demo line. Functions nicely on Talk:Walmart except there is a hidden category error that I cannot track down: Category:United States articles with invalid parameters.. Cheers! Ping me back if and when you figure it out. Thank you so much. I will update the documentation for the template itself. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
To editor Checkingfax: Some WikiProject templates don't support the B-Class assessment parameters, and {{WikiProject United States}} is one of them. Someone in that Wikiproject may want to address that. For now, I've left a comment inside that template at Talk:Walmart without losing the assessments that have already been made. As for leaving out the |demo= parameter, I'm okay with that because it seems to only rarely be needed, for example, to keep my talk page out of the category. Happy to see that the new param works well for you! and kudos for remembering to update the template documentation. BTW, the limit to the number of authors is more than three – the limit is whatever the |authors= parameter in the {{Citation}} template can handle, which has recently become "unlimited".  Stick to sources! Paine  12:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Paine. I will add the demo parameter then. Should it be documented? If so, can you please handle that?
I know we can add more authors to the template but right now it is limited to three authors. Is there a better way to document that? I will give a shot at refining the doc and you can refine my refinement. Thank you for your help. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Pleasure! Paine  

Thanks a lot!!!

I'll try to do my best.

2A02:582:945:DA00:2001:EAA6:90C5:6170 (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, 2A02+ – it's a pleasure! Since this post is your only contribution, I'm not sure what prompted you to thank me; however, I just wanted to say that trying to do our best is what all of us here try to do. That makes for an improved Wikipedia!  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  08:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

A reply to your inquiry

"Apparently, any editor can accomplish a 'back door' round robin." I don't believe so, not without having speedy deletion requests fulfilled by administrator. If that were the case, there wouldn't be enough of a need for this user right. That aside, there are no red links in the last 2,000 pages created (at Special:NewPages, didn't check quite so many at Special:NewPagesFeed). On the assumption at least 1 in the last 2000 pages created was speedily deleted, I don't believe deleted pages "hang" in the logs at new page patrol. Moves within the mainspace and redirects themselves don't show up in the standard "(article)" setting of new page patrol anyhow. Replying here, as I wanted to answer your question, but may lack the time to follow the discussion there. I could be wrong, as it was xaosflux who brought up "patroller issues etc." (they have been around a lot longer than I and I've found their statements are generally accurate and reliable), though that is rather vague. Best Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, Godsy! Let me run this by both of us to see what happens. I come across a page that I consider incorrectly titled, and I check to see if what I deem the correct title exists. Arghhh! It's a redirect with more than one edit. I've never done more in this case than slap a G6 on the redirect and wait for an admin to come by. But let's say instead that I move the redirect to a newly created page. The redirect left behind would have only one edit, the move, so as I said, "theoretically" I would be able to then move the original article or page to the preferred title (I say "theoretically" because there have been times when a redirect has had only one edit and I could not move over it for some other reason). At this point, I simply tag the new redirect left behind with the correct rcats and slap a G6 or G7 on the temp page I created. Yes, eventually an admin is needed; however, the admin need comes after the completed page move, not before. Does all this sound feasible, and if so, maybe there isn't a need for the user right after all? OR: maybe since an admin is ultimately needed, then the user right is still a good thing?  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  05:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC) 13:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

File mover granted

Hello Paine Ellsworth. Your account has been granted the "file mover" user right, either following a request for it or due to a clear need for the ability to move files. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:File mover for more information on this user right and under what circumstances it is okay to move files. When you move a file please remember to update any links to the new name as well! If you do not want the file mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Widr (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Widr!  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  19:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

thank you

Yes getting that off me chest did help me a bit. I am also in extreme pain because I have blood poisoning because I managed to cut me hands somehow a couple of weeks ago and am on medication which makes me quite sick, I only kinda submitted to go to the doctor's two days ago, it will pass but it makes it very tricky. So as your sig says it is OUR encylopedia well I probably misread that but I can't kinda backscroll too well what I can do to exercise my hands is just trog through all these redirects, it gives my hands some exercise. As Eric Morecambe said to Andrew Preview on the 1971 Morcambe and Wise Christmas show when told he was hitting all the wrong notes, "Listen, pal, I'm hitting all the right notes. But not &ndash? I'll give you that, sonny – not necessarily in the right order". Si Trew (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I hope all of that means that you've still got your sense of humor, Si, even in the direst, gloomiest of circumstances. Do get well soon, won't you?  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  14:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Sangha

Hi there. The page Sangha was moved to Sangha (Buddhism) to let Sangha (disambiguation) be at the primary title, after an editor requested it at Talk:Sangha (Buddhism)#Requested move 11 May 2016. I'm looking at the article traffic statistics and it seems that the original article receives almost a hundred times more pageviews than the dab page. Doesn't that make it a very solid primary topic? The requested move discussion is closed now, is there a way of reopening it? I don't want to start a move review, because I have no issues with the close itself, given that almost no-one had voiced an opinion. Is it better to just open another requested move? Uanfala (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a good question, Uanfala, and thank you for making corrections! I just spent several hours disambiguating more than 2,000 links that went to the Sangha page. All those now go to the Sangha (Buddhism) page. Whew! I would not be offended if you were to decide to contest the page move for any reason. That's how Wikipedia grows, that's how we improve it! You mentioned two options, a move review or opening a new requested move. A third option would be to begin a new informal discussion after the closed request at Talk:Sangha (Buddhism) to see if other editors agree with you. Whatever you decide to do is okay by me.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  02:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Having some extra disambiguation in a few thousand links isn't going to hurt anyone and there are situations where this could be useful too. I've started a new requested move, hopefully that'll manage to attract opinions in a way than an informal discussion probably won't. You're welcome to join it: Talk:Sangha (Buddhism)#Requested move 4 June 2016. Thanks! Uanfala (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the invite, Uanfala; however, as the closer of the previous RM, if I were to participate in the new RM it might give the appearance of a conflict of interest. I probably would be of no help to you, though, because in my opinion there are two main topics, Buddhism and Jainism, and both are very interesting to readers to the extent that neither should be considered primary over the other in terms of "Sangha". There was even a period last year during August and September when the Jain community was quite a bit more popular than the Buddhist Sangha article. So in my humble opinion and with all due respect, the Jain community article gets enough hits to make me believe that the Buddhist Sangha article should not be considered the primary topic. I could be wrong.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  15:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
To editor Uanfala: I was clearly wrong about the above. I forgot that the Jain community article is more general than the Sangha in Buddhism article, and is not specific to the subject of "Sangha". So I've left a small comment to that effect in your requested move. If the Sangha in Jainism redirect is used in the analysis, then "Sangha in Buddhism" clearly comes out as the primary topic, as you suggest.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  17:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikispecies

Dear Paine, you seem to busy in organazing files and names, and I noticed also for animals, why I would like to invite you to have a llok on the sister project Wikispecies. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your invitation, Dan Koehl! You may mean the recent work I've done with articles about extinct (mostly) lizards and the frogs of Madagascar? Such articles do interest me, and I expect there will be more and more linkage between Wikipedia and Wikispecies. I shall definitely look into Wikispecies more in depth.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  02:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Paine, Thanks for the welcome message, how are you doing? Is there anything you want to discuss?Blinndsay (talk) 06:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey Blinndsay! It's a pleasure to welcome you to Wikipedia and to my talk page! Over on the Friends' talk page, you mention a "Lindsay Michael Toms" as being involved with the creation of the TV series. I looked for corroboration and could not find any, so if you can provide a reliable source for this article addition, then I would be happy to include it in the article about Friends.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  06:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

people= vs author=

Hi, Paine. I am using template:cite AV media to cite a video, and I would like to list two directors. They are not authors, screenwriters, or editors. From reading the doc it looks like people= can be used the same way as author=

However, when I tried it two or three ways it did not work:

people = joe blow (director) | people = jane doe (director)

nor

people = joe blow (director) | people2 = jane doe (director)

nor

people1 = joe blow (director) | people2 = jane doe (director)

Here is one Diff. Can you help me? I would like it to work like author =, author2 = , author3 =, and so on. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Checkingfax – Just looked at the present Caitlyn Jenner article, and it appears that you have found a way to make the |people= parameter do what you want it to do. Separating the two names with a comma or a semicolon is exactly what I would have suggested. Best to you!  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  16:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Fascism

Paine,

Is there a review of the "fascism" page I suggested mild change too? I feel vandalism is at stake or mainly people are counting on readers to only read the first 2 or 3 paragraphs and assume that conservatives were fascist when in Europe both were at the people's throats. If the review takes then I'm patient. As well, I'd like to thank you for the tips and tricks page which will aid me with understanding how the community works. So my learning curve will be shaped by community virtues and a desire for diversity. Thanks. 96.32.174.31 (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

If I can assume that you are User:Juggernautz, then you might want to respond to the other user who responded to you at Talk:Fascism#Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2016. I've always thought as you do, that fascists could be ultra-conservative or ultra-liberal. I'm not an expert, so I could be wrong about that. It appears that the term "fascist" applies only to ultra-conservatives, and that far-left liberals who appear to be, or who profess to be fascists might be called something else? although I don't know what. Any review of the Fascism page would begin with the discussion you started at the talk page. If you continue to disagree with the reverts and can show solid, reliable sources to support your claim, then we can go from there. It is important that you understand that improvement of the Fascism article must be discussed on the article's talk page. Again, welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope that your satifaction is forthcoming!  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  14:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Impeachment of Bill Clinton#Requested move 10 June 2016

Hi Paine Ellsworth. Please take a good read of WP:RMCI. The second sentence clearly states "Please only apply these after the normal seven day listing period has elapsed". You closed the request above after a period of only two days. Requests should only be closed early when WP:SNOW applies, and here it clearly didn't. I haven't checked your contributions to see if this is a recurring issue, but please, do keep this in mind next time. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Omni Flames – If you look at the RM again closely you might agree that this was more of a technical move. A known sockpuppet had moved the Clinton page title away from consistency and convention, then a good-faith move of the Johnson page had followed suit. Both pages had been RM'd in an earlier discussion from 13 May that had not been researched as well as this move request. I don't make a habit of closing such requests early, but in this case it seemed like the right thing to do. Thank you very much for your concern!  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  00:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah, right. I suppose that does make sense, perhaps some clarification as to why you closed it early in the closing rationale would've helped. Sorry, I didn't look into it very much. Omni Flames (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I was going to add something, and then I decided not to. Should've followed my first instinct. I'll add something now in case other editors wonder why.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  00:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Move request ep.2

Hi. Following your advice I started again a move request for Hafsa Sultan. Since you did tacitly agree to it (or at least didn't oppose to) could you be so kind as to take part to the move discussion in order to get things done a little bit more quickly? Regards.--Phso2 (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Phso2 – it is important that a good move request not be denied, and I think this is a good request. We must however avoid a move review by taking all necessary steps to make sure that other editors also think it's a good move request. One of those steps is to let a move request run its full course, which is a minimum of seven days. If there is little discussion, then the request can be relisted, which will add to the time it takes. There is really no way around this for page moves that might be, or even slightly seem to be, the least bit controversial. I will be glad to close it in seven days from when you initiated it as long as there has been some discussion and support for the move.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  14:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I didn't ask for a "speedy closing", I am aware the 7 days period has to run; I only suggested you gave your opinion on the move, in order to avoid a new everlasting relisting for a move that was requested on May the 27th without having met any objection so far (besides formal ones). If no one cares about this article, will it be impossible to move it just for formal issues?--Phso2 (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Apologies for my misunderstanding, Phso2. If you think it will help things along I shall be glad to !vote as soon as I return from my offline duties, which shouldn't take too long. To answer your question, nothing is "impossible" on this encyclopedia project. Patience and persistence are the main virtues here, and thank you for exhibiting both in a civil manner! Later.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  16:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

page move close

Why did you close that move request? Why do you think it appropriate to close a request in a page where you are involved? nableezy - 23:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

To editor Nableezy: It was a procedural close and I linked to the reason why.  What's in your palette? Paine  23:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, my concern remains you taking that action on a page youre involved in. I dont see anywhere in the link that explains that. Which is why I asked you here. nableezy - 23:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
If there were an actual decision made or to be made, then your concern would be warranted. I made no decision other than to perform a procedural close. Anyone can do that when it is required. In this case, the RM bot can only handle one open move request per talk page. And the only time an editor should not close a requested move or any other discussion for that matter is when that editor participates, specifically, when they leave a support or oppose !vote, in the discussion that is being closed. There is nothing on this project that counsels that an editor may not close any particular discussion in which they have not participated. I did not participate in the discussion I closed.  What's in your palette? Paine  00:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
No, WP:BADNAC, which references WP:INVOLVED, applies to demonstrating a position in related discussions. nableezy - 07:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Of course, I'm open to getting a third opinion on this Nableezy, but since this was just a procedural close so that the RM bot would not get all screwed up, then I see no conflict of interest. In this as in other things we don't seem to have a meeting of the minds. What would you suggest?  What's in your palette? Paine  01:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
A third opinion has already been expressed at Talk:Ancient synagogues in Palestine#Suggestions, so I ask you also to forgive me. My instructions as a page mover give caution that if there is even the slightest hint of COI, then another course of action should be taken. You were right, I was wrong, so thank you for pointing it out to me!  What's in your palette? Paine  02:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
no worries. nableezy - 07:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft article, Draft:Carver Homestead

Hello, Paine Ellsworth. It has been over six months since you last edited Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Carver Homestead".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If the submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for editing the draft for Wikipedia, and happy editing. Puffin Let's talk! 22:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Printworthy question

Hi Paine. I have a question about whether a redirect is printworthy (and what that actually means). The redirect in question is Cumbric language. I had assumed that the unprintworthy category was only for redirects that were incorrect but still plausible search terms (e.g. a common misspelling) and that AWB/bots/etc. actually bypassed unprinworthy redirects. Is this correct? If so, "Cumbric language" is a valid alternate title and could plausibly appear (linked) in running text in another related article. Or have I completely misunderstood what printworthy/unprintworthy is supposed to mean? I must admit I read your essay on the subject and was none the wiser. Jenks24 (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

My essay is just a first stab at a subject for which few on Wikipedia seem to have many answers, right or wrong. And I am little wiser myself having practiced subjective application for so long. In my estimation, any redirect title that should be available in an index of titles, such as on a CD, should be deemed and categorized as printworthy. Titles that are confusing or otherwise misleading should be deemed and categorized as unprintworthy. The calls are rarely black and white, and there is little guidance for the gray area, which is broad and wide. On a peripheral note, I thought Koavf had stopped hard catting {{R printworthy}} and {{R unprintworthy}} long ago, because I hadn't noticed it being done since 2011. Guess I was wrong about that.  What's in your palette? Paine  08:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I see I left one of your questions unanswered, the one about the bots and AWB. My understanding is that AWB can be set to bypass just about any possibility and that bots must be used when generating article titles for CD publication that will bypass unprintworthy redirects probably by using the category. There is still quite a number of redirects that should be categorized but aren't, so the publishers still have a mountainous task when it comes to redirects. I'm sure that many redirects that should be in the CD index are not, but if what I suspect is true, and the many redirects that are uncategorized are bypassed, then at least the ones that shouldn't be in the index don't make it in.  What's in your palette? Paine  08:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
So, at the moment you'd agree it (Cumbric language) should be consider printworthy because it's not confusing or misleading? In any case, now that Koavf has been pinged I'm happy to wait to hear what he has to say before doing anything else. I don't usually get involved in categorising (or not categorising) redirects, I just happened to have this one on my watchlist because I'd made the move. Jenks24 (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd say that Koavf makes a good point: in any index that includes all included titles, "Cumbric language" would follow "Cumbric" and is unprintworthy; however, if there is an index of article titles and a separate index of redirect-only titles (and I'm unsure as to how the CD/DVD disks are indexed), then yes, "Cumbric language" should be included as printworthy, because if a reader is browsing the redirect-only index looking for the language, then "Cumbric language" would need to be there among all the other "X language" redirects.  What's in your palette? Paine  10:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jenks24: Even in the case of a list of redirects, I still don't see the scenario where someone needs to be directed from "Cumbric language" to "Cumbric"--it seems pretty obvious and straightforward to me, especially if that person has seen articles like English language and disambiguation pages like English. I just really don't see how the ink spilled on "For Cumbric language, see the article on Cumbric" would ever really help anyone. What say you? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@Koavf: My theory was "what harm does it do?" It might be obvious to 99% of people, but what if it helps 1%? But maybe that's just me still being in Wikipedia's normal 'not paper' mode. I'll defer to your and Paine's judgement in this area. I appreciate the responses from both of you, I feel like I at least have a better understanding of the whole thing now. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
To editor Justin: Not quite sure I understand the following: If there is an article, "Cumbric", that is not a redirect, then it would of course not be included in a list of redirects. So if a redirect such as "Cumbric language" is unprintworthy and not included in that list of redirects, how can a reader be directed at all to the "Cumbric" article from that list of redirects? A reader would look up "Cumbric" and find... nothing. Wouldn't a printworthy "Cumbric language" redirect ensure that the reader would have to "hunt" no farther?  What's in your palette? Paine  19:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Print editions I guess that I think of print editions of Wikipedia not as long lists of plausible redirects but like a standard encyclopedia which would have the occasional "For [x], see [y]" as a one-liner sprinkled throughout the book. There is no point in having a line that says "For the Cumbric language, see a half-inch below this line". In any scenario where someone is looking for Cumbric, he would immediately find it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
To editor Justin:The closer I study this, I see that it isn't very far-reaching. All of the Cumbric-like pages I've checked so far are not redirects, they are either language articles or disambiguation pages. And most language articles are titled "X language". Cumbric is the rare dead language to which the word "Cumbric" only applies to the language, at least to the extent of present knowledge. So there is no real need to decide either way for now. Thank you Justin and Jenks24 for your inputs! Such conversations are always a learning experience for me.  What's in your palette? Paine  01:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Round-robin

Hi Paine Ellsworth, it's not 100% clear to me whether Talk:Government/Archive 1 and Talk:Government/Archive 2 should have redirects created after the move, but for the sake of completeness (and per WP:PMVR#rr), it's worth considering. I'll leave it to you. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I actually went ahead and created them; it was breaking a link on the current talk page. Thanks. By the way, your dab additions at RMCI are helpful, and thanks for holding that vote at RMpmc. We'll see what happens to the template at TfD though — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC) 00:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Andy W! When the page was first moved to Forms of government, I thought it best to leave the Government archive pages alone, because while it was first turned into a dab page (I dabbed about half of the 5K plus links to it before it was turned into an article) I knew it would eventually be turned into a broad-concept article. Another editor jumped right in and began the BC article, and I figured that its talk page might someday require its own archives. At this point it's not a big deal to let those pages redirect to the Forms of government archive pages as long as the first two Talk:Government archives are created manually. The only problem that might be forseen is if somebody engages MiszaBot (User:lowercase sigmabot III) and it tries to create the already existing archive pages. It's a tossup whether or not that will ever become an issue, but one never knows. The rest was a pleasure! When I see a need, I try to fill it. You know where I stand on the template. It doesn't really have to shout out about the closer being a page mover; however, linking to the PM page might be more helpful to some RM participants.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  02:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Ahh, thanks for the context, yeah I know what you mean. Makes sense. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
If a talk page is moved, it's best to move its archives too; don't suppress or delete the resulting redirects, otherwise links to archived discussions from elsewhere get broken. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and that is, I think, Andy's expressed concern. In this case, the archives were moved with the talk page, which was moved with the subject page. Since it was a "round-robin" type move sequence, the redirects were suppressed. Normally, the archive redirects would be recreated to target the appropriate archive pages, but in this case I left them red-linked because I knew a broad-concept article would be created that may/might/would require its own talk-page archives. As it is now, I shall place an invisible comment on the talk page of the new broad-concept article so editors will know that the archive pages one and two presently exist as redirects.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  08:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Jr/Sr inconsistency

Paine, thanks for pointing out that the naming convention and MOS guidelines were not in sync. The big RFC earlier this year that led to the updating of MOS:JR hadn't made its way to that naming conventions page, so I went ahead and updated it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Much better, Dicklyon, and thank you! I thought something like that might have happened. I just checked the RM page and couldn't find your proposed tech moves. Have they already been renamed?  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  06:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, got it. All have been renamed.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  10:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I heard that you were the one who redirected Starfire (comics) to Starfire (Koriand'r). I just wanted to let you know that Red Star originally went by the Starfire name. I'm just letting you know this just in case you wanted to convert Starfire (comics) into a disambiguation page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rtkat3 – I did stumble across Red Star while researching the page moves, which also included Starfire (DC comics) → Starfire (Star Hunters). Since Red Star didn't stay "Starfire" for long, I did not include that character in the process. Now that you have taken the time to come to my talk page about Red Star, I have included the character in hatnotes at both of the Starfire articles. At the time of the page move, I did consider starting a "Starfire (disambiguation)" page and redirect both "Starfire (comics)" and "Starfire (DC comics)" to it rather than to their respective renamed articles, however I decided that hatnotes would suffice. I hope the inclusion of Red Star in the hatnotes does the job.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  16:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Template substitution

Why should a welcome template be always substituted? --95.49.33.102 (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Please reply on my talk page. --95.49.33.102 (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Reptiles are now classed as sauropsids.

In Korean wikipedia, the Reptiles are class written as sauropsida. (석형강) The class Reptila is actually merged into sauropsida because birds and reptiles are inseparable. Nowdays we don't normally use Reptila according to.Line 8 the Pink (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Line 8 the Pink – please see my response at Template talk:Iguanidae#"Class" entry.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  04:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Redirect categorized as both unprintworthy and printworthy

After requesting the creation of this redirect, I noticed that {{Redr|to anchor|with possibilities}} caused it to be categorized in both Category:Unprintworthy redirects and Category:Printworthy redirects. That doesn't make much sense, and I've requested for |p1=printworthy to be added, but it should probably default to something more sane than that (perhaps just don't categorize by printworthiness at all, or make generally printworthy ones override the unprintworthy category by default). nyuszika7h (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, nyuszika7h, the situation you describe is an extremely rare one. Redirects with possibilities are always printworthy, and redirects to embedded anchors are almost always unprintworthy. I had worked on redirect categorization for more than a year before I came across one like The Girl and the Dreamcatcher redirect. That's when I encoded the printworthy option into the R to anchor rcat. To categorize the printworthiness of a redirect is important for reasons given at that link, so not categorizing by printworthiness is not an option. And there is no code I know of that will make the rcats interact so that usage of one will affect the printworthiness of another. However, I'll give that some thought, and if it is possible, I'll figure out a way to do it. Thank you very much for your due diligence with redirects!  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  16:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I see, it may not be so easy with the current setup where the wrapper transcludes the individual templates and each template defines its own default printworthiness. Out of curiosity, I checked with AWB's List comparer, and found 203 redirects categorized as both unprintworthy and printworthy. I will get around to fixing them later. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
202 now (I fixed another one) – This illustrates what I mentioned... out of all the kazillions of redirects in mainspace, just a couple hundred need fixing. I work on these too from time to time. And your edit request has been done! Happy happy!  Paine  17:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
It appears {{R from stylization}} hardcodes printworthiness, would you mind fixing it to allow it to be overridden? nyuszika7h (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, stylized redirect titles should go into any index of redirects on CD/DVD or printed versions. Readers will look for those first before looking for the unstylized Wikipedia article title. Can you give me an example of a stylization that should not be indexed (printworthy)?  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  19:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
-Oz- which is an alternative capitalization of the actual stylization -OZ-. – nyuszika7h (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
For that stylized title, since it is a viable search term that might be used by readers, I see no reason why the 1st and 2nd parameters of {{R from other capitalisation}} cannot be used as I've already done. The alternative would be to treat it as a "miscapitalisation", which would mean removing the stylization rcat and making the redirect unprintworthy. I think the first choice is the better one – what do you think?  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  20:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think "-Oz-" is printworthy as it would be right next to "-OZ-" in a list of redirects. As for search it's case-insensitive so it shouldn't matter. Also, I think we can use {{R avoided double redirect}} there. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't mind being wrong, nyuszika7h, so if you want to change it to "unprintworthy", that's okay with me. Just remember that if the R from miscapitalisation rcat is used, then the R from stylisation template should then be removed, since in any case it's not the true stylisation of the target article. Yes, I think now that I agree with you.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  04:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Another case, 1-800-COLLECT – {{R from telephone number}} seems to hardcode unprintworthy, though this one might be printworthy, and it's tagged as {{R with possibilities}}. I've made it unprintworthy for now to fix the double category, what do you think? nyuszika7h (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

To editor Nyuszika7H:  Fixed that one by altering the printworthiness of {{R from telephone number}}. "No" is still the default, and if the first parameter is used as I've done on that redirect, then the redirect becomes printworthy. In case you wonder why I also include the {{R printworthy}} rcat within the {{This is a redirect}} template, it's to make the printworthy explanation appear within the template's Mbox. That used to be automatic until editors complained of the redundancies.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  01:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Needs more polishing on the Jose Rizal article

Hi. Thank you for the change but there are still inaccuracies and polishing needed in the article. Please see bullets below:

1. Please remove this:

"José traced his patrilineal lineage back to Fujian in China through Lam Co, a Chinese immigrant who came to the Philippines in the late 17th century and was later baptized as a Christian and renamed Domingo."

Since the article already have this:

"His father's family began in the Philippines from a Chinese merchant named Lam-Co. Lam-Co immigrated to Manila from Amoy, China (now Xiamen) to possibly escape the Manchu invasion and finally decided to stay in the islands as a farmer. In 1697, to escape the bitter anti-Chinese prejudice which then existed in the Philippines; he later converted to Catholicism, changed his name to Domingo Mercado and married a daughter of a native."

Reason: It is redundant and unnecessary.

1A. The keys here are that the redundant "and was later baptized as a Christian and renamed Domingo" was removed, and that the rest of the sentence you want removed was transferred from the first paragraph to the second so that it would more naturally lead in to that second paragraph.

2. Please review the line you have altered in "...he later converted to Catholicism, changed his name to Domingo Mercado and married a daughter of a NATIVE." which you have changed to Philippine national.

Reason: There was no Philippine nationals at that time. There were only Spanish subjects which the people of the Philippines are. The term 'Filipino' are only exclusive to pure Spaniards who were born and raised in the Philippines. Thus, the more appropriate term for it is NATIVE.

2A. I noted that below, you use the term "indigenous", and I do prefer that to "native", so I changed it to that.

3. Please review the lines you altered below:

"On his mother's side, Rizal's ancestry included Spanish, Chinese, Japanese and Filipino blood."

Again, the term 'Filipino' at that time are only for the Pure Philippine-born Spaniards. Also, we cannot use Filipino used in the current context to talk about the past because today, Filipino is not a racial term. Seeing that this happened before the Philippines was an official country, the more accurate term to use for Jose Rizal's lineage is either:

"On his mother's side, Rizal's ancestry included Spanish, Chinese, Japanese and TAGALOG blood."

or

"On his mother's side, Rizal's ancestry included Spanish, Chinese, Japanese and indigenous native blood."

Reason: to be more accurate

3A. I used the first choice above and linked to Tagalog people.

4. I do not understand why is there a need to alter and cherry-pick the last sentence?:

"His mother's lineage can be traced to the affluent Florentina family of Chinese mestizos originating in Baliuag, Bulacan."

The same Gutenberg source you chose to use as a reference says that her mother belongs to a wealthy and affluent families on both chinese, spanish and tagalog backgrounds but you choose to use the reference of the affluent chinese baliuag family which is a maternal side of the family of jose rizal's mother. this is the article in the project gutenberg source you choose for alteration. 

from gutenberg source:  (note: brigida de quintos is teodora alonzo's mother/ jose rizal's maternal grandmother.)

-"Brigida de Quintos’s death record, in Kalamba (1856), speaks of her as the daughter of Manuel de Quintos and Regina Ochoa." -"The first of the family is said to have been Policarpio Ochoa, an employé of the Spanish customs house. Estanislao Manuel Ochoa was his son, with the blood of old Castile mingling with Chinese and Tagalog in his veins. He was part owner of the Hacienda of San Francisco de Malabon. One story says that somewhere in this family was a Mariquita Ochoa, of such beauty that she was known in Cavite, where was her home, as the Sampaguita (jasmine) of the Parian, or Chinese, quarter." -"There was a Spanish nobleman also in Cavite in her time who had been deported for political reasons—probably for holding liberal opinions and for being thought to be favorable to English ideas. It is said that this particular “caja abierta” was a Marquis de Canete, and if so there is ground for the claim that he was of royal blood; at least some of his far-off ancestors had been related to a former ruling family of Spain." -"It is certain that Regina Ochoa was of Spanish, Chinese and Tagalog ancestry, and it is recorded that she was the wife of Manuel de Quintos. Here we stop depending on memories, for in the restored burial register of Kalamba church in the entry of the funeral of Brigida de Quintos she is called “the daughter of Manuel de Quintos and Regina Ochoa.”"

Please change from

"His mother's lineage can be traced to the affluent Florentina family of Chinese mestizos originating in Baliuag, Bulacan."

to

"His mother's lineage can be traced to the affluent mestizo families of Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan and Pangasinan."


Reason: 'Mestizo family' would be more accurate since he has both families of spanish-tagalog-chinese backgrounds, not just chinese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.71.48.151 (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

4A. I changed that to its present wording because I had looked for the connections to Laguna, Cavite and Pangasinan in the Gutenberg source and found only that reference to Bulacan. If the others are added, they will need to be precisely sourced.
 Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  16:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Previous response
Thank you for letting me know all this. I haven't yet had time to check into it or into whether or not you also placed this request at Talk:José Rizal under an edit request, which would be a good idea if you haven't already done so. I try to get to as many of these requests as I can, and there are other editors who do the same. One of our concerns should be the addition of too much detailed information into an article, which might make the article less encyclopedic to general readers. I'll have a look at your suggestions as soon as I can get to them.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  20:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Kosher tax close

Regarding your close of Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)#Requested move 16 June 2016: The discussion was a direct result of Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)#RfC: Does the title, hatnote, and lead of this article adhere to the neutral point of view policy?. I suggested pinging the participants of that discussion within the requested move discussion. As I've been so heavily involved in this matter, I didn't want to take the liberty of doing it myself. Might I implore you to reopen the discussion for one more week along with that action? I don't necessarily disagree with your close of the discussion in its current state, but I think my proposed action has a real chance of strengthening consensus either for or against the requested move, and that those who participated in the related RfC deserve a notification. Best Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 16:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

To editor Godsy: Since it was closed "No consensus", then your request is a good call, so  Done.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  17:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Protection level showing up twice in Redr template

I just made an edit request at Talk:Jimbo Wales § Protected edit request on 22 July 2016. Maybe you could also fix the {{This is a redirect}} template to not duplicate the protection level if it's provided as an explicit rcat? nyuszika7h (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are a few of these left over of all protection levels that at one time only had the protection rcat within an older This is a redirect template back when it did not sense protection levels. Now that it does sense those levels, the easier task is to remove the protection rcat whenever we come across it – as you have done with your edit request. Thank you for your continued help with this and with other forms of redirect categorization!  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  18:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Another hardcoded printworthiness

I tried to add {{Redr|avoided double redirect|p1=Disney Channel Original Movie|from plural|from list topic|p3=unprintworthy|unprintworthy}} to Disney Channel Original Movies, but {{R from list topic}} hardcodes printworthiness. Can that be changed, or should I just omit that rcat? nyuszika7h (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Well nyuszika7h, these redirects have a long and convoluted history!
Additionally another title, List of television films produced for Disney Channel was moved to List of Disney Channel Original Movies on 1 September 2007, which threw a minor wrench in the works.
All this colorful history tells us some things. It says that Disney Channel Originial Movie will never be anything but a redirect to its present target. An IP editor tried to turn it into something with this edit, but that was just another list and was almost immediately reverted back to a redirect. So if you were to turn that title into an article that would last and would help readers, what would you turn it into? After asking myself that question and not coming up with a viable answer, I am adjusting the redirects with categories that are as accurate as possible.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  18:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't plan on turning it into a separate article, I suppose that note {{R avoided double redirect}} makes is kind of redundant, so it may not need to be included. Anyway, "Disney Channel Original Movie" is not a miscapitalization, that's how they are branded, and adding an "s" to the end does not make it a miscapitalization. The list article says "Disney Channel original films" to also cover their other original films under a previous, different branding of "Disney Channel Premiere Films". nyuszika7h (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I'll readjust them after I eat some lunch.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  18:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh Very Young

I'm confused as to why you put File:Cat Stevens Buddha and the Chocolate Box.jpg under "See also". I wouldn't have given it a second look except it's a red link after the file was deleted by User:Explicit.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me like the file was replaced, either through a page move or a new upload, by File:Buddha and the Chocolate Box (Front Cover).jpg. When I placed it on the song's page, it had not yet been deleted – perhaps redirected, but not deleted.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  19:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
It was deleted recently, long after you did this. I was wondering what the proper action is now to achieve the result you wanted.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
It's taken care of by using the recent title of the album cover's file.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  19:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

King Arthur/Lucan etc.

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that in regards to the actor portraying Lucan in King Arthur, IMDB has an error. The actor in the film (made in 2004) appears to be about 5 or 6; the actor listed on WP and IMDB is Johnny Brennan, former member of the Jerky Boys, and would have been 43 years old when the movie was made. The confusion stems from the actors having the same name and Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB both have the same error. I'm going to fix the IMDB page (which is inaccurate) and then redo the WP link. I just wanted to let you know why I edited the article in the first place.

Not Lucan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Brennan

Actual Lucan: http://www.moviestillsdb.com/movies/king-arthur-i349683/bab817

Thanks.Yojimbo1941 (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

To editor Yojimbo1941: Yes, you're correct – mybad. I will not again challenge your edit. Good catch!  Paine  19:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and no problem. Who knows how long it was even there? Yojimbo1941 (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Who knows? I imagine it as... We're improving the Universe, one article at a time (sometimes one link at a time).  Paine  19:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes that's all you can do.Yojimbo1941 (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Redirect category shell

Template:Redirect category shell has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, JohnBlackburne, for the heads up!  Rules of enpagement Paine  21:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Female infanticide

Female infanticide is still common in India. It is thus unwise to speculate regarding education leading to improvements etc without a reliable source. - Sitush (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

To editor Sitush: I agree with you, and since the source book is nearly 20 years old, it is speculation that the practice is still performed, at least in the numbers it was practiced when the book was published. A newer source is needed to confirm that it is still practiced and, if so, in what numbers.  Rules of enpagement Paine  00:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
No, it isn't needed and it is not speculation. You need to get a grip on how members of castes try to puff up their communities/remove "bad" things. Try this from 2007. If you really think that a system which has existed in India for many centuries is going to change in 20 years, well, I'm afraid you don't know much about Indian society. - Sitush (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
This is not about how much you or I know about Indian society, it is about how much we know about Wikipedia best practices. A source that was published in 1997 does not tell us what things are like in those regions today, so "are known to practise..." is a misnomer of original research unless a recent reliable source can be found to verify the claim. The old source book supports a sentence with "have been known to practise". To say "are known" would indicate that the source is recent rather than nearly 20 years old. It is also interesting to note that the source appears to have a discrepancy: In one paragraph it states that the ancient history of the region does not include mention of infanticide, then later it calls it an ancient practice. If there is nothing in the ancient history, then how are we to know to call it an ancient practice?  Rules of enpagement Paine  00:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
You have modified your edit since my initial comment, so this is moot. Eg: from 2011 goes to show that the practice still goes on in TN, as it does in many other Indian states. You are not dealing with someone who is clueless here: I appreciate the modification you made to your initial edit (which did demonstrate a certain naivety) but please don't tell me how to suck eggs when in comes to Wikipedia policies and caste articles. They're what I do. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't recall telling you to do anything, and I could consider your posts to be a bit "hostile"; however, I always prefer to AGF rather than to assume the worst. I hope my most recent effort meets with your approval, and perhaps the "Cradle Baby Scheme" from your 5yo source would be useful to mention in the article? It appears to have some positive info, especially since its inception in '92 – nearly 3,800 children rescued, mostly girls.  Rules of enpagement Paine  00:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: List of rulers in the Philippines

Hi. Thank you for processing the RM request. I believe the nomination was for List of sovereign state leaders in the Philippines, not List of sovereign state leaders of the Philippines. It is important to distinguish between the two as these are leaders of individual states in present-day Philippines, not sovereign state leaders OF the Philippines, as it had not existed yet. Thanks.--RioHondo (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I chose that title as the preferred title by SMcCandlish in hopes that their recommendations would be followed. The subtle difference in scopes did have an effect on my decision. If you think I was wrong to follow that editor's first choice, can you be more specific as to your reasons? I don't follow what you stated above: ...these are leaders of individual states in present-day Philippines, not sovereign state leaders OF the Philippines, as it had not existed yet.  Rules of enpagement Paine  05:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Maybe you can clarify something else for me as well, RioHondo: I couldn't really say anything as closer of the MR, but I wonder why the page isn't just merged (if necessary) and redirected to one of the other appropriate list articles? That would seem to simplify the situation a good deal more than it is now, don't you think?  Rules of enpagement Paine  06:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for the the reply. The problem with having the article at List of sovereign state leaders of the Philippines is that it may be misconstrued that these are leaders of the Philippines, at a time when the Philippines as a nation occupying this archipelago was not even established yet. Whereas if it is at List of sovereign state leaders in the Philippines, or even state leaders in Philippine history, it will make it more clear that these aren't leaders of the Philippines per se, but just of individual states that existed in present day Philippine territory. Thats the point i was trying to make, cos the country's only true leaders are at Heads of state and government of the Philippines. Then the article List of recorded datu in the Philippines can be merged to this. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your help in this, RioHondo, and I understand your concerns about "of" vs. "in" the Philippines. You mention that the List of datu can be merged into the renamed title, which raises the question: Why not merge the renamed title into the List of datu? Is there any reason why the merge could not be made in that manner? At least that way, another page move would be unnecessary – just merge the renamed page into the list of datu and redirect the renamed page to that list of datu.  Rules of enpagement Paine  21:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Just so you know, RioHondo, that I'm not jackin' you around, I asked the above (about the merge from the recently and, in your opinion, poorly renamed title to the List of recorded Datus in the Philippines) simply out of curiosity. If you truly think that the merge should go the other direction, then I am most definitely prepared to use "in" instead of "of" in the title to which you want to merge. I will gladly do that if that is what you think improves Wikipedia most.  Rules of enpagement Paine  03:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I understand that while Datu is the generic term for noble leaders in pre-hispanic Philippine states and societies, i have yet to verify if these huangs and huangdoms which were recently added (and have Chinese roots) can be considered too as such. So while that is not clear, I think it would be best to go for the neutral title which is List of sovereign state leaders in the Philippines or List of Filipino sovereign state leaders and the datu list be merged to this being the more stable title as it turns out. Again, thanks for your help, and sorry for the confusion there. Its an area of Philippine history that is still obscure, and being debated among even us editors here. Lets go for neutral and stable.--RioHondo (talk) 07:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay,  "of" → "in"  Rules of enpagement Paine  10:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Cheers! --RioHondo (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Pleasure! Paine  

RfC

Please note that when requesting RfCs, the request should be neutral—"a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue"—and should not suggest your preferred option as you are doing in your draft at User talk:Paine Ellsworth/RfC Alexander the Great. More appropriate wording would be something like "Should the tradition about the Jews showing Alexander the book of Daniel be included in the History section or should it be in the Cultural impact section?" I trust that this will be appropriately fixed before actually raising any RfC.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance, as you seem to think me ignorant in more than just the A of G article's fine points. That is a draft, and it shall be further honed before the if and when of its use. Geez... you remind me of me.  Rules of enpagement Paine  12:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Sarcasm aside, you're welcome. I've seen your change, which is only a very very slight improvement. The request should be a neutral question/statement about the content, not about 'restoring' a particular version, which implies a preferred version.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
We really should put a stop to this forked discussion. Frankly, it's nobody's business but mine what goes on a subpage of my user talkspace. If you have a problem with the finished product, then you will be able to lodge a complaint at the formal RfC. As for "content" vs. "restoring a particular version", I see absolutely no difference between the two. How can you, possibly?  Rules of enpagement Paine  13:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
It's pretty much your own business until you either put an {{rfc}} on it (preferably not before you move it out of User: space) or move it to Wikipedia: space. Once there's an {{rfc}}, it's fair game. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I have lodged the RfC with a neutral statement, as there is no point in endless debate and the draft RfC with reference to a pereferred version is not in accord with the guidelines for RfCs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
To editor Jeffro77: Perhaps oddly, I had thought about it and, with no support thus far from involved watchers of the page in our informal discussion, had figured that it would likely do little good to start an RfC. Thank you, though, for your diligence in finding out what's right in this matter.  Rules of enpagement Paine  18:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. Given that activity at the article in question (a fairly dry topic for the average person) is fairly sporadic, and discussion at the Talk page even more so, it was indeed a good idea to suggest an RfC to draw attention to the issue. Thank you for the suggestion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Pleasure! Paine  
Thank you, Redrose64, I assume you mean the active application of the RfC template and not just the inactive {{tlx|rfc}} application as I did on my user subpage?  Rules of enpagement Paine  18:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I used {{tlx}} partly because I always do when linking templates with the intention of not transcluding them, but also because in this case the alternative method of wrapping the template in <nowiki>...</nowiki> simply wouldn't work - Legobot looks for two opening braces followed directly by the three letters "rfc", and assumes that it's an open rfc - which is why it added a |rfcid= to a nowiki'd rfc template in this edit, and why it added |rfcid= to a commented out rfc template in this edit. It also assumes that templates like {{rfc top}} and {{rfc bottom}} are also the starts of open rfcs - as with this edit from earlier today. It also doesn't correctly match braces, and drops its new |rfcid= parameter immediately before the next pair of closing braces - which might be a completely different template, as here. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Redrose64! Yes, I had read about the different bot handling when only nowiki tags are used. Sounds as if perhaps Legobot needs to be tweaked, because there may still be editors who will use the nowiki tags out of habit.  Rules of enpagement Paine  19:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

pageswap script for convenience

Hi Paine Ellsworth, I've noticed that you've been doing round-robin page moves occasionally. Thought I'd share a script here (js) that semi-automates page swaps for convenience, if you ever encounter the scenario. You'd simply click "Swap" and enter a page destination, the script performs the 3 moves as necessary (saves time having to manually go through the move form 3 times). (It doesn't correct redirects afterwards, that's still manual)

Anyway feel free to adapt this script as you see fit, cheers :) (By the way the default temporary page prefix is currently hard-coded as "Draft:Move/", with what's following being page A... don't have a way to customize a fixed page like you do yet) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Andy M. Wang! I imagine that such a script keeps us from making the silly mistakes I made when I first tried these round-robin swaps. If so, it would be a good tool for those who don't want to make those mistakes. I'll of course look into it and will most likely use it, so thank you again for providing it!  Rules of enpagement Paine  18:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

100,000 edits!

This user has earned the
100,000 Edits Award.

Congrats Paine Ellsworth!! -- Ϫ 07:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


Thank you very much, œ™!  Paine  u/c 16:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Updates to rcats

Was there a discussion about the updates such as this? Just curious, I like to stay informed about rcats, and I try to watch for discussions on the matter. Best Regards, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

To editor Godsy: Can you make the link blue so I know to which updates you refer?  Paine  u/c 03:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 Already done, you probably missed it due to an edit conflict of sorts. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To editor Godsy: Those edits are the result of the discussion on the talk page of the This is a redirect template. You asked in that discussion what the differences would be (it was a good while ago, so I don't expect you to remember every detail) and the diff to which you linked above shows the difference we discussed, which is minimal. These edits were first discussed in regard to giving Redr a new parameter, |rcat=; however, the final result, which also needed these edits to the rcats, was to create a simpler template with only one parameter for one or more rcats, the {{Rcat shell}}. The rcat conversions are almost complete. Another advantage of this is that improvements made by editors to rcats do not have to be made twice, once for each transclusion of the Redirect template. It seems like every week I had to fix one or two rcats because editors would forget to modify the second transclusion. This is no longer the case.  Paine  u/c 04:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Template talk:This is a redirect#One parameter, this one? There's quite a few and I don't want to re-familiarize myself with the wrong one (especially as the one I linked is quite a wall of text).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and I've anchored the part where you asked your question about simplification.  Paine  u/c 04:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the timely and adequate responses. I had mostly forgotten about that discussion, but I'm glad its yielding some seemingly positive results. Warmest Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Pleasure! Paine  

Possible Vice President edit

I was wondering if the Vice President of the United States needs "|p=1|br=1" to be added for the Start date and age formation date, since I noticed you edited so for POTUS (sourced below).

Source(s):
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_the_United_States&diff=734780336&oldid=734717730 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.203.83 (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done  Paine  u/c 02:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

/r/The_Donald

I'm not sure about the printworthiness of R/The Donald, I mean it was kinda determined to meet WP:GNG based on the coverage but there's not a lot to say and it has been merged to another article now. What do you think? nyuszika7h (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

This seems similar to a Twitter username, nyuszika7h, so I tend toward "unprintworthy". Probably suffers a bit from recentism as well?  Paine  u/c 09:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

R extended-protected

Hi Paine Ellsworth, for a page like Disgusting, the rcat should sense the protection level accordingly, so I created Category:Extended-protected redirects and let {{R extended-protected}} (sandbox, doc) populate it. I've also added the extended-protected entry at Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages. I'm a bit unfamiliar with rcats, haven't really been working with them, but please feel free to fix anything I might have missed or neglected to update :) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Excellent,  Andy W. – I was keeping an eye on the recent discussion and hadn't gotten around to this yet, so thank you very much for taking care of this important addition to the rcat family! And you even thought to include it in the index. It all might could use a little tweak here and there – no worries.  Paine  u/c 12:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jawaher bint Muhammad Al Qasimi (September 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was:
The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
David.moreno72 14:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
Hello! Paine Ellsworth, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! David.moreno72 14:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
(Left this message on David.moreno72's talk page): Regarding the messages you left on my talk page, the article in question at Draft:Jawaher bint Muhammad Al Qasimi was not submitted by me, it was submitted by this new editor. I just cleaned it up a little. Please send your messages to that editor regarding the status of their article submission. Thank you very much!  Paine  u/c 19:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
To editor David.moreno72: I have transferred the above two notices to the new user's talk page. Cheers!  Paine  u/c 23:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Printworthiness of alt. language names of plants

Hi, Looking at that, I'm not sure I'm able to see why the native name of a plant should be unprintworthy. Any thoughts? By the way, thank you for standardising the redirect categories pages, this is a task that I was hoping to some day do, but which I would have probably never got around to doing. Uanfala (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Uanfala – with few exceptions such as Latin and Greek, redirects from foreign-language terms have been tagged as unprintworthy on the English Wikipedia. And believe me, I know the feeling – never thought I'd get around to it either. It was really great of Rich Farmbrough to create the two category templates that make updating sooo much easier.  Paine  u/c 09:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
So such redirects normally get tagged as unprintworthy? Has there been a discussion about that? I'm really surprised, as I'm used to seeing native plant names used frequently in the ethnobotanical and anthropological literature (not that I've read much of that, and even then there's a bit of variation). Uanfala (talk) 09:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I remember a few discussions about it such as at Template talk:R to scientific name; however, I've always looked for reasons to call some of them printworthy, and your reason seems as good as any. From now on when I see such redirects, I'll tag them as printworthy.  Paine  u/c 09:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the understanding. If we're going to apply one rule across the board, then maybe instead of specifying it by hand, it's better to let the printworthiness be indicated by the rcat template? Uanfala (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't know, that's a good question. I remember having a discussion with another editor about removing the default "printworthy" because that editor thought some of the redirects to technical and scientific names were not printworthy. For example, some species I've worked with had seven or eight common names in different regions. Should they all be printworthy? Some or just one of them? So I had to agree that there were enough cases that were questionable to remove the default "printworthy" and have editors decide which to use on a case-by-case basis.  Paine  u/c 10:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
It's a tricky question. I have added common name redirects to one of the yarrow family, and they were numerous indeed. The original idea behind "printworthy" was based on the idea that a paper version of WP might be a good thing, as, at the time, the penetration of the Internet was limited, and Wikipedia was much smaller. It still has value, as books made from Wikipedia articles should use the printworthy redirects as "See Foo" if they are alphabetic, or as index entries if not. Clearly it would go against tradition to use "incorrect name" of "mis-spelling" redirects for this purpose, at least in paper books.
In many cases a third party will need to use their own algorithms to decide how to deal with redirects. I am slightly fed up with people (elsewhere) deprecating what is good for Wikipedia as an "on-line encyclopaedia anyone can edit" on the grounds that it "affects Google" of "is being copied by others n a misleading way".
In summary I can see no overriding reason to tag these as "unprintworthy" unless they are mis-spellings.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC).
To editors Rich Farmbrough, Uanfala, Plantdrew and Peter coxhead: I've altered the {{R to scientific name}} rcat to default to "printworthy" while being changeable by use of a named parameter, |unprintworthy=true.  Paine  u/c 11:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't really care either way, but one problem has been that often not enough care was taken in creating English name redirects; editors just added names with which they were familiar without knowing that they were ambiguous. Plantdrew has done sterling work in creating SIAs and converting redirects to SIAs, but it's certainly not a completed task. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've tagged all the plant common name redirects I can find with no regard to whether they're printworthy. They majority likely are, but there are certainly some exceptions. Bizarre capitalization variants (along the lines of "Small-Flowered foowort"), missing diacritics, non-standard transliterations of names from languages with non-Latin alphabets, archaic alternative spellings, etc. I'm not inclined to go back through 56,000 redirects to check for printworthiness; I'm willing for now to accept that some will be inappropriately labelled as printworthy.
A minor quibble. How will the printworthiness of R to scientific name interact with the unprintworthiness of R to diacritics? Plantdrew (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Plantdrew – wanna thank you for your Herculean efforts with the science redirects! When you come across a redirect that is also to diacritical marks, just use {{R to scientific name|unprintworthy=true}} to avoid sorting the redirect to both printworthy and unprintworthy categories.  Paine  u/c 19:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, although I said I didn't care either way, when I look at Category:Redirects to scientific names of plants it seems to me that a very high proportion of the redirects are not printworthy, being simply variants of one another. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Category for redirects without printworthiness

You said earlier {{This is a redirect}} used to automatically show printworthy/unprintworthy when using a rcat that automatically categorizes them as such. Did you have a better way to do that or did you just hardcode the list of default-(un)printworthy rcats and check the parameters for override? I'm asking because I thought it might be useful to create a tracking category for redirects which need categorization by printworthiness (obviously, this would only work where {{This is a redirect}} or {{Redirect category shell}}) is used. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it was each individual rcat that showed its printability one way or the other, so if two or more such rcats were used in the This is a redirect template, the printworthiness was repeated for each rcat. An editor asked that it be changed, so I changed it. The display of the default printability was controlled by the individual rcats, not by the This is a redirect template. The way it's set up now, in order to get printability displayed, either {{R printworthy}} or {{R unprintworthy}} must be included within the template. I'll have to give your idea some thought – right now I can't think of a way to encode the capability of sensing whether or not a redirect needs any specific type of categorization. Not fully awake yet.  Paine  u/c 12:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Rcat for "X", "Y" → "X and Y"

Is there an rcat for redirects from "X" and "Y" to a combined article titled "X and Y", such as {{R to joint biography}}? I'm talking about A-side and B-side here, which redirect to A-side and B-side. – nyuszika7h (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, nyuszika7h, for asking! For A-side I would use:
{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from subtopic}}
{{R unprintworthy}}
}}
and for B-side:
{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from move}}
{{R from subtopic}}
<s>{{R hatnote}}</s>
{{R printworthy}}
}}
The A-side redirect is unprintworthy because it would be right there in an index with the article title, while the B-side redirect would be off in the "Bs" and therefore should be printworthy.  Paine  u/c 00:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Makes sense, thanks. I thought about subtopic after I posted the question, but wasn't sure if there happens to be a more specific rcat. But I guess subtopic is fine. nyuszika7h (talk) 08:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Just noticed that it is B-Side that's mentioned in the hatnote, not B-side... nyuszika7h (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Good catch! Geez, you'd think I'm gettin' old or somethin'!  Paine  u/c 13:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

"This is a redirect" weirdness

This is the first time I've seen {{This is a redirect}} being placed on the same line actually causing an issue – apparently together with the RfD wrapper it breaks (permalink). I've fixed it in the article now (and also replaced it with {{Redirect category shell}}), but this is definitely weird. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and it's due to HTML Tidy, so see Template:This is a redirect#Footnotes.  Paine  u/c 13:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
PS. Also mentioned at Template:Redirect category shell#Notes. PS left by  Paine  u/c
PPS. Checked for a bug fix, but couldn't find one; however, you are welcome to try. PPS added by  Paine  u/c
@Nyuszika7H: Most box-type templates need to be placed at the start of a line otherwise some or all of their contents get ejected, this is well-known problematic behaviour. The historic reason for placing templates like {{R to related topic}} on the same line as the #REDIRECT [[]] was that at one time, upon encountering a redirect, the MediaWiki parser would only process the first line and ignore the rest of the page - so any categorisation templates had to be on that same line. This restriction hasn't applied for several years now, but there are still a lot of redirs formatted like that. You can safely alter any instance like 
#REDIRECT [[Robustification]] {{This is a redirect|to related topic}}
to 
#REDIRECT [[Robustification]]
{{This is a redirect|to related topic}}
although Paine prefers a blank line to be inserted as well. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I always do that anyway, and add a blank line too, but I've never seen it actually breaking before. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

R to disambiguation page

I have implemented a check at {{R to disambiguation page/sandbox}} to add an error message and tracking category if it's being used on pages that do not end on "(disambiguation)". I've tested it, but you might want to look at it first before I apply it to the live version. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that's a good idea, and if it turns out that there is a large problem with incorrectly tagged redirects, then we can create a template to hold the Mbox. Also, note in the sandbox that I've moved the parser function out of the {{Redirect template}} and includeonly'd the whole thing. I had to make a little adjustment because the category appeared even on correctly tagged redirects. The documentation at template Redirect template warns us that the template and parser functions don't usually work well together, so it's usually better to place functions outside the template. I monitor that error category and will keep up with any errors this produces. You can go ahead and engage the live template whenever you're ready.  Paine  u/c 18:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 Done Thanks for the corrections. (I just noticed this reply.) nyuszika7h (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Pleasure! Paine  

To editor Nyuszika7H: Just to let you know, the category has so far filled to nearly 600 pages, so I modified {{R to disambiguation page}} to send these to their own Category:Pages with incorrectly transcluded disambiguation templates. The pages in the parent category will soon transfer to that subcategory.  Paine  u/c 02:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Rcats "should be only used on redirects" causing issues with RfD

See Special:Permalink/742732797, where {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} errors because the page is not currently technically a redirect because of RfD. "Should only be used on redirects" applies to every rcat really, so I don't understand why only certain templates complain ({{R avoided double redirect}} is the other one that comes to mind). I don't know if detecting the RfD template is possible, maybe we should just have a silent tracking category for these. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

To editor Nyuszika7H: Please see and perhaps comment at Template talk:R from incomplete disambiguation#Error.  Paine  u/c 17:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paine_Ellsworth/Archive_14&oldid=1086810707"