This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

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

Hi King of Hearts, and thank you for coming to my talk page! In that RM, I saw 3 support rationales (including the nom's) based on the COMMONNAME policy and only one oppose rationale (yours). Your argument was sound but not policy-based. So the hatnote I just placed near the top of the Santiago Bernabéu article should suffice. It seemed to me like a clear consensus to rename. Just to be careful, I ran the page views analysis to find that the stadium‍:‍person ratio was presently between 3:1 and 4:1. So it seems pretty clear that the consensus in the discussion was correct to want the pages renamed. Would you have preferred the stadium article to ultimately be renamed to "Santiago Bernabéu" instead? (I thought the name of that stadium included the proper noun "Stadium" as in "Estadio Santiago Bernabéu". Isn't that correct?) Paine Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there  08:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) I concur with King of ♥. The argument that the person is primary over the much more well-known stadium was not well presented, and there's no consensus for that outcome. Reverting the move and running the "experiment" suggested by JHunterJ seems like the best way forward. Thanks  —  Amakuru ( talk) 08:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Amakuru, and here I thought the page views and the local consensus covered it. There is no primary topic per the page views, and the base name belongs to the person as their COMMONNAME. I see no harm in creating the redirects and running the experiment. If the stadium turns out to be the PTOPIC, then we can revisit the RM. No need to revert the page moves at this time, in my humble opinion. Paine Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there  08:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Hi, Liz, good to hear from you again.! Yes, those redirects are now sent to populate Category:Angel (TV series) episode redirects to lists, so no contest. Best to you! Paine Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there  19:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Hey Steel1943! Been thinking about this, and thank you for bringing it to my attention. I see down the page that, when appropriate, it's okay to use article categories on redirects, so this needs more thought as to what the section at WP:LISTRCAT is trying to accomplish. Let me massage it a bit more. Paine Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there  02:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

To editor Steel1943: it takes a bit of re-reading, and I'm not real certain how to make WP:LISTRCAT clearer. Sounds like you did the right thing, though. And have you seen the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 18#Category:Middle-earth horses? That cat is one of the examples used at WP:LISTRCAT. Paine Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there  16:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

That's kind of what I was thinking too. What an odd passage ... with an indeterminate ability to be improved ... Steel1943 ( talk) 04:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Hey there, CycloneYoris! Looks as though that page has been moved by another editor. Best to you! Paine Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there  17:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed. But thanks anyway. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Pleasure!  Paine  

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

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

To editor Narky Blert: actually, when I began dablinking that page with AWB a few hours ago, there were more than 5,000 links that needed disambiguation, so I'm on it boss! Please don't respond for awhile, because AWB makes me stop, log out, log into WP to read my talk page msgs and won't let me make edits until I do. Paine Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there  09:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

To editor Narky Blert: just completed the AWB and manual dabs of all articles, categories and file pages. Best to you! Paine Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there  18:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Applause! 5000 is twice the size of the biggest problem I've seen.

A trick I've used, is to work between User:DPL bot runs, or to disable the {{ dab}} tag until what-links-in is clean or nearly so in order to stop DPL bot from noticing. Yrs, Narky Blert ( talk) 18:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The largest I've done was around 14,000 minus the many User, etc. links. Thanks for giving me the clap!>) Paine Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there  18:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow, great work, thanks! 👏👏👏 — JFG ^talk 20:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Pleasure!  Paine  

Let us also take a moment to honour the high deeds of bd2412 who single-handedly corrected about 65,000 redirects during the New York Wars. — JFG ^talk 00:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Note that when you have a really large number of links to fix and don't want to be bothered with messages that interrupt AWB, you can move your talk page to a temporary title (e.g. User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Talk); editors looking to leave you a message will be redirected there, and probably won't even notice that it isn't your regular talk page title, and messages left will not disrupt your work flow. I would only caution that you have to be doubly careful that you don't make some mistake with AWB that has people trying to send you messages to stop what you're doing! bd2412 T 01:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Excellent! Paine Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there  03:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

In British English, no-one would thank you for giving them the clap... Narky Blert ( talk) 06:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

lol! hence the old-fashioned, Usenetish smiley-wink in my response above after the word "clap" → !>) Paine Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there  06:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Thank you very much, MJL, for this notification! Paine Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there  00:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course! Though, it was sort of just WP:Twinkle being twinkle. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 00:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Oh, I see that's pretty much what you suggested. Thanks. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

To editor Dicklyon: yes, it won't take much to make it right. It looks like one word was added to the redirects' target titles several years ago. Wasn't sure if you would want to add that word to your request's target titles, too. So I had to leave it up to you. Sorry to make a bit more work for you, but more than a dozen of your requests landed in the "Malformed requests" section of WP:RM because the current titles were redirects. Paine Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there  03:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually quite a pain trying to change each item in two places after the substing. I hope the bot handles it right. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Me too. So far so good. Paine Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there  03:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

( talk page stalker) I do note that in Paine's closing remarks, they did note that they're open to an alternate title "while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. And if anyone objects to the closer's choice, they may make another move request immediately, hopefully leading the article to its final resting place.". I come across this sometimes in requested moves - I find a consensus to move the title away from the current title, but consensus isn't particularly clear on where to move it, so the closer picks from options presented, with no prejudice for going with one of the alternates. No comment on this RM in particular, except that I read through the discussion myself but Paine beat me to the close. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 01:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I fail to see that "consensus has rejected the former title". Nardog ( talk) 01:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I noted that too ("no consensus for the title actually chosen" ... "may make another move request immediately"). Ideally, the closer should have summarised the cases for each of the contenders for the alternative title, and made a minimal statement for why one was chosen over others. I also think that immediate renominations are a bad idea. I don't think closers should be authorising immediate renominations when the notion of a follow-up RM was not in the discussion. Immediate renomiations are at the expense of the quality of the nomination statement. A considered new nomination needs a bit of breathing time for participants to digest what just happened. That said, I think "accent" is a subset of "English" and ""General American English" was what I supported, and was the only formal proposal. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The subject of the article is the accent, exclusive of syntax, morphology, spelling, etc., which is why (in my view) "General American English" is more ambiguous than "General American", the established term for the accent. Nardog ( talk) 01:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion for how to best approach these sort of things is to NOT go for an immediate (<24 hours) renomination, but to give it about a week minimum, think over "General American English" versus "General American accent", also "General American English accent", and then make a carefully crafted new nomination. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for tps'ing! P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there 04:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I hear you, Nardog, and there is no need to apologize, instead thank you for coming to my talk page. In defense of my closing comment, the first time I read the discussion I saw no general agreement across the board. Then I decided to read it again, because something didn't seem quite right. While there was an obvious lack of agreement about what new name to use, my second reading found that 1) supporters' rationales were significantly stronger generally than opposers', and 2) responses of supporters to opposers (generally) were very effective rebuttals in my humble opinion. So as I began to see a definite need to do something with the page title, the result was my closing statement.

Red Slash is not the first to conflate CONCISE and PRECISE, I've been known to confuse those myself sometimes. The companies' names caught my eye early on, which is why I mentioned them. Just like the Mississippi River is often just called "the Mississippi", any one of those companies could be called just "General American", which sealed the title's ambiguity for me. Please keep in mind that I consider the additional "English" in the title to be nothing more than a natural disambiguator, and I disagree with Sangdeboeuf's edits to the lead. Like, say, Mercury (planet), the lead sentence does not begin "Mercury (planet) is the smallest and...". There was no need to alter the lead sentence of the GA article, or I would have done so. "English" only qualifies the GA title and is an unnecessary adjunct to the very beginning of the lead sentence.

Pardon the interruption, but it was not a conflation; I actually meant what I said (though I'm known to make mistakes!). The two-word title does not convey enough information to describe the topic and therefore fails not WP:PRECISE but WP:CONCISE (read the first sentence). Red Slash 18:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The "General American accent" suggestion, while a contender for the title, was rejected for the reasons you set forth in the discussion. "I find 'General American accent' redundant, defying the 'conciseness' criterion." So if a choice had to be made, "English" was better than "accent" as a qualifier. P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there 02:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you on the lead sentence. Per MoS, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence if possible, and if it can be accommodated in a natural way. The reason Mercury (planet) isn't in the lead sentence of that article is because it isn't a natural use of English. As you stated in your closing comment (thank you for that), General American English is in common usage according to reliable sources, so including it in the lead adds information that will be useful for readers. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 03:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I see the sense in what you say and did, just don't see the actual need to include "English" in the first words of the lead sentence, since it was included later in the sentence in the American English link. Not a big deal, though. P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there 03:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I meant sorry in this sense because I was in disbelief. You found arguments on one side stronger, fine, but when the !votes are split precisely in half, that seems like good reason to !vote yourself or relist, not to close in favor of that side.

The Mississippi River is not an appropriate comparison because there is no other thing known simply as "General American" that has an article on this site. The companies are only partial matches, so there is no need for a natural disambiguator in the first place.

I said "General American accent" would at least make more sense than the proposed name (emphasis added). I find "General American English" more ambiguous than "General American" or "General American accent", defying Precision, and it also defies Conciseness when the article only discusses the accent.

Anyway, I take your response as an indication of no intention to revise the outcome, so I'm filing for a move review: Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 August#General American English. Nardog ( talk) 04:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the company names are not ptm's any more than "Mississippi River" is a ptm on the Mississippi (disambiguation) page. They can all be referred to as just "General American" in the same manner as the river can be referred to as just "the Mississippi". And nobody has asked me to revise the outcome, but I guess it's too late now. P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there 04:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

So you think a hatnote should be added? Nardog ( talk) 05:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd have to look at it more closely; however, my shoot-from-the-hip thought is to create a dab page at the "General American" title. P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there 05:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@ Nardog: if the article truly only discusses the accent, then it doesn't actually reflect the sources and should be amended. I note that three sources cited just in the lead section discuss General American (English) as a dialect, whether genuine or specious (Kövecses 2000, Labov et al. 2006, Van Riper 1973/2014). More are given on the talk page. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 09:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

To editor Nardog: my conclusion, as I said, was based upon the strength of the supporters' args and rebuttals being greater enough than opposers' to be deemed a consensus to move away from the previous title; however, that greater strength was not enough to form a consensus for the nom's suggested title, that is, the arguments of opposers were strong enough to preclude a clear consensus for the suggested title. That choice of title was mine alone, which is why I had to invoke the stipulation that a new RM could be started at any time as long as the new suggested title is different from the previous title. P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there 19:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Spectacular close

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

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

Hi, can I ask if you were aware of this discussion/decision to suppress the template while we were discussing the update to it? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 20:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

No, Steelpillow, I was not aware of that decision. What can I do to help? P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there 23:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The closure decision has now been reverted by the closer (at my request). You might like to add your contribution to the restored discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 05:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that link! I'll look things over and see what I can do. P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there 14:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Per your question in the now-closed RM: Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#How_much_more_likely_is_"much_more_likely_than_any_other_single_topic"?. -- В²C ☎ 18:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

To editor В²C: thank you for this pointer! Interesting conversation with several esteemed people attending. I haven't participated because, in a discussion like that, we are all just a "lone voice in the wilderness" (plus I've been very busy offline :>). Truth is, I've always liked the idea of a people being the PTOPIC over their language – in any case – so I wouldn't dream of contesting that RM's outcome any further. There will always be these inconsistencies on Wikipedia. Even though our reliance on local consensuses leads to inconsistencies, there is no way we will ever come to a community consensus on any issue that resembles the question "How high is 'up'?" P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there 00:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Inside this newsletter, the Editing team talks about their work on the mobile visual editor, on the new talk pages project, and at Wikimania 2019.

Help

What talk page interactions do you remember? Is it a story about how someone helped you to learn something new? Is it a story about how someone helped you get involved in a group? Something else? Whatever your story is, we want to hear it!

Please tell us a story about how you used a talk page. Please share a link to a memorable discussion, or describe it on the talk page for this project. The team would value your examples. These examples will help everyone develop a shared understanding of what this project should support and encourage.

Talk Pages

The Talk Pages Consultation was a global consultation to define better tools for wiki communication. From February through June 2019, more than 500 volunteers on 20 wikis, across 15 languages and multiple projects, came together with members of the Foundation to create a product direction for a set of discussion tools. The Phase 2 Report of the Talk Page Consultation was published in August. It summarizes the product direction the team has started to work on, which you can read more about here: Talk Page Project project page.

The team needs and wants your help at this early stage. They are starting to develop the first idea. Please add your name to the "Getting involved" section of the project page, if you would like to hear about opportunities to participate.

Mobile visual editor

The Editing team is trying to make it simpler to edit on mobile devices. The team is changing the visual editor on mobile. If you have something to say about editing on a mobile device, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.

Edit Cards

• On 3 September, the Editing team released version 3 of Edit Cards. Anyone could use the new version in the mobile visual editor.
• There is an updated design on the Edit Card for adding and modifying links. There is also a new, combined workflow for editing a link's display text and target.
• Feedback: You can try the new Edit Cards by opening the mobile visual editor on a smartphone. Please post your feedback on the Edit cards talk page.

Toolbar

• In September, the Editing team updated the mobile visual editor's editing toolbar. Anyone could see these changes in the mobile visual editor.
  • One toolbar: All of the editing tools are located in one toolbar. Previously, the toolbar changed when you clicked on different things.
  • New navigation: The buttons for moving forward and backward in the edit flow have changed.
  • Seamless switching: an improved workflow for switching between the visual and wikitext modes.
• Feedback: You can try the refreshed toolbar by opening the mobile VisualEditor on a smartphone. Please post your feedback on the Toolbar feedback talk page.

Wikimania

The Editing Team attended Wikimania 2019 in Sweden. They led a session on the mobile visual editor and a session on the new talk pages project. They tested two new features in the mobile visual editor with contributors. You can read more about what the team did and learned in the team's report on Wikimania 2019.

Looking ahead

• Talk Pages Project: The team is thinking about the first set of proposed changes. The team will be working with a few communities to pilot those changes. The best way to stay informed is by adding your username to the list on the project page: Getting involved.
• Testing the mobile visual editor as the default: The Editing team plans to post results before the end of the calendar year. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: VisualEditor as mobile default project page.
• Measuring the impact of Edit Cards: The Editing team hopes to share results in November. This study asks whether the project helped editors add links and citations. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: Edit Cards project page.

– PPelberg (WMF) ( talk) & Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 16:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'd be interested to hear what you think of this behaviour , whitewashing an RfD as if it never happened. Regards. Amanuensis Balkanicus ( talk) 20:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The move was performed in violation of Wikipedia policies: there was no discussion at all yet. If you bend over to Serbian nationalists, I do not give a fuck for the article, I have more interesting things to do that to engage in wikiBalkan wars. Have a nice day. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Please help me out here. The page was not moved, it was merged and redirected following an AfD discussion. The edit history is still intact and preserved. Please be specific about which policies have been violated. P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there 21:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Ranks in the Boy Scouts of America. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. -- evrik ^{( talk)} 21:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Rojava is not the same as "North and East Syria" and this article is about North and East Syria not Rojava which means West of Kurdistan. The commonly used name in the media is North and East Syria, Rojava is totally unrelated to this. The article is misleading and sources there are original research.-- SharabSalam ( talk) 15:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

To editor SharabSalam: not an expert, so I am happy to take your word for that. Please keep in mind that I did not close the request at Talk:Rojava#Requested move 14 October 2019, I only relisted it on 22 October 2019. If you would like to discuss this with the closer, you are welcome to do so on their talk page . P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there 15:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought you closed the request. Sorry.- SharabSalam ( talk) 21:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hiya can you explain your rationale for closing the move discussion as no consensus on Autonomous social center? I'm not seeing it. Thanks. Mujinga ( talk) 23:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

To editor Mujinga: happy to oblige. As nominator, your support for the page move included a sound nomination statement and rationale. After reading the page creator's detailed rationale, I was unable to determine myself which of the two synonymous terms, "autonomous" and "self-managed", could be considered the common name for this type of center. Discounting the final oppose rationale as only a reminder that "center" should be chosen over "centre", I was led to the no-consensus decision (instead of "not moved", which would mean that the page should not be renamed for a much longer period). After checking the logs to find that "Autonomous social center" has been the stable page title since the article's creation in 2017, "no consensus" meant that the present title should remain in place for now. Hope this helps! P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there 17:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Template:Indo-Aryan languages shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Uanfala (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

To editor Uanfala: in more than ten years I have never taken an editor to a dispute resolution noticeboard. With this action, I am very close to doing so and will read up on the process in case you force me to do so. I respectfully ask that you immediately cease and desist your unfathomable efforts against consensus and against me. I consider this a personal attack and will take steps necessary to stop you if you don't stop yourself. P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there 21:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

To editor Uanfala: I've decided not to take this dispute to a noticeboard. I gave some thought to inviting some admins to this section of my talk page, the ones that have already been involved in these discussions and a few more admins I know. And if any one of those admins should decide that either you or me or both of us should be blocked from editing, then I would abide by that decision – and so would you. However, rather than all that, I've decided to step away from all this. Do as you please. If you ever revert one of my /doc page additions again, I won't contest it. Your edits against the consensus of this community will catch up to you at some point; however, you will never again hear from this editor on this issue. P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there 21:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I think it will definitely be a good idea to get other people's opinions here. If you go on moving template docs all across the board, it's likely you might run into similar situations again; so if there's any disagreement about the conditions under which this activity is of benefit, then it's better if these are sorted out first. – Uanfala (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you have another issue you'd like to discuss? This one has become both a no-brainer and a non-starter for me. Best to you! P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there 23:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The issue I thought we'd been discussing so far is the use of separate doc pages for navboxes. The same considerations that recommend against them for the two specific templates also recommend against separate doc pages for most other navboxes as well. – Uanfala (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for closing that RM. I'm not sure about the recategorisation though: as far as I can see, Category:Visayans and Category:Visayas are for two separate things (compare Visayans and Visayas). – Uanfala (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

To editor Uanfala: trying to rename the categories to reflect that "Visayas" and "Visayans" refer to the geographical area, while the people and languages are "Bisaya" and "Bisayan" respectively. Is this not correct? P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there 20:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about the people; even if it seems plausible it might be a good idea to double-check first. However, I was referring to moves like this one.

Also, is there a way to fix the close? It appears as though the move is still open. I could try to fix it myself, but as an involved party in the discussion I probably shouldn't be seen to be fiddling with the closure templates. – Uanfala (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, there's this: Talk:Visayans#Requested_move_7_November_2019. It doesn't look like the ethnic group is going to be renamed. – Uanfala (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

After I closed the RM and started checking, the article on the people was Bisaya people, so that and the closed RM are what I was working with. The example you gave just shows the people categorized within the geographical location. I won't make any more category moves until we see how Talk:Visayans#Requested move 7 November 2019 closes.

Usage of {{ Requested move/end}} is a valid alternative for closing RMs. I've updated that template and am not the only closer who uses it. Nothing needs to be fixed. P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there 21:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh my bad, I just didn't see RMCD bot remove the notice from the article and I assumed something must be amiss (although, is that template meant to produce so much template code and output these parser functions when susbsted? As for the categories, the main problem as far as I can see is that a lot of biography articles have ended up removed from a previous category that was dedicated for biographies and placed directly under a very broad geography category. – Uanfala (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I think I fixed that, but let me know if I missed something. P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there 22:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

To editor Uanfala: also, I've unsubstituted the closure template and it seems to work okay. I'll make some checks to see if substitution is necessary. P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there 22:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

To editor Uanfala: as you may have seen, I had to revert my edit and re-subst the {{ Requested move/end}} template. It appears to require substitution for bot and archiving purposes. So I tweaked it and by using "safesubst", I was able to decrease the amount of code substantially. P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there 06:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Paine!

I wanted to drop you a message regarding the bold/italics for UFC event names (and alternate names). Of the 504 events with links in the 'Past Events' section, 502 follow the bold/italics convention. The two that do not are UFC Fight Night: Zabit vs. Kattar and UFC on ESPN: dos Anjos vs. Edwards.

If you are going to change the style for UFC Fight Night: Zabit vs. Kattar, I think it's probably best if you also change the other 502 to match. Thanks!

To editor Maxwell vs Euler: have no problem with making those changes. Before I do, I would like to know what justifies such an apparent and blatant abuse of our MOS style guideline. I can find nothing myself that tells us that MOS:ITALICS shouldn't be followed. Is there any good reason? P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there 06:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

To editor Paine Ellsworth:

Hi Paine!

I'm a bit confused!

I'm not sure if you mean to actually ask me those two questions or if they're rhetorical and you are just venting your frustration... I haven't looked to see who wrote the titles in that way and I can't say what justifications they may or may not have had. If you are looking for answers to those queries, you can probably see who the original authors are in the history of each page, and open a discussion with those authors.

I have a feeling that you know a lot more about Wikipedia style convention than the authors who wrote the titles that way, though.

My contribution wasn't much; I just wrote a quick programming script to check all of the other titles for bold/italics and the 502/504 is what popped out, so I just changed one or two that I noticed were not the same as all of the others. You've brought the style guidelines to my attention, and I can see that using italics is not the correct way. My reason for reaching out, originally, was just to let you know what I had found, so you could take further action, if you saw fit.

-MvE

To editor Maxwell vs Euler: sorry if you've been misled, since there is no frustration involved. As I said, I was just getting you to tell me if there was some sports guideline or event guideline that overrides the MOS and allows italics in the lead sentence only, not the page title, not the infobox title, just the lead. Couldn't find it anywhere, and if by your words there is no such guideline, then all those leads definitely should be corrected. P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there 07:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

To editor Paine Ellsworth: Sorry, I can't be much help here. I don't know whether or not there are any sports or event guidelines that override MOS. I hadn't even heard of MOS before this conversation. I can try to take a look for any of additional guidelines with regards to sports/events, when I find some time tomorrow. Otherwise one of us could reach out the original authors to see if they have any information that we aren't privy to. If you feel comfortable that there aren't any additional guidelines, I think it's safe to say that the other lead sentences should be changed.

Not time pm me for disambiguation. It seem lots of Sai Kung are historically misused in wikipedia and should either pipe to the geo or the administrate area, and least likely point to the town which is very small. Matthew hk ( talk) 19:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

To editor Matthew hk: yes, while I was disambiguating the backlinks of Sai Kung, I found several that were meant to link to the district rather than the town. And there were also a few that had to be linked to the peninsula. Most of them did seem to be meant for the town, though. P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there 20:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

And i finally have time to review it. It seem most of the link are referred to the District instead of town. It seem a common problem of HK, which quite a lot of area are without name in the 1900s, and then they were named after the biggest geo feature of that area. And then it caused so many problem when people writing articles about these areas (for example Yuen Long have 5 articles that seem have a quite a degree of overlap; Tai Po v Tai Po District is still manageable but Sai Kung v Sai Kung District is a mess). Now i am trying to overhaul all the geo articles that adding statuary boundaries for administrative areas and fix every articles with citations, and remove content that without a source or misplaced. And lastly cleanup the internal links. Matthew hk ( talk) 04:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

To editor Matthew hk: that's awesome! Thank you so much for the all this work you've done! PI Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 15:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Please be careful with this - only titles of works of art should be italicized, names should not. This is a complicated subject, partly covered at WP:VAMOS. It can be a thin line. If you are going to italicize the title in the text, where it is the subject of the article, you need to do the same to the article title. Johnbod ( talk) 19:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

To editor Johnbod: I see what you mean about this being complicated. I'm going to have to re-read the material, because on first read I don't really understand it. For example, the difference between a "title" and a "name"? On Wikipedia, an article title is the same as an article name. So I don't understand the difference between the title of a work of art and the name of the work. What sets them apart? Your revert of Buddha in italics... the name is linked to the article about Buddha; however, the context in the Buddha Park of Ravangla article was "statue of the Buddha", so doesn't "Buddha" in that context refer to the title of the statue? rather than the name of the religious leader and sage? P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there 19:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

It is complicated. Not all terms used to refer to works are titles. Ideally a title traces back to the artist, and is individual. Typically keen WP editors give too many article titles italics. "Buddha" is not a title, not least because many alternative names would be equally or more accurate, referring to his pose, "aspect" etc. Johnbod ( talk) 20:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I would think it would depend upon usage in reliable sources mostly. If RS's refer to the statue as "Buddha", then the case would be similar to Benjamin Franklin, not the Founding Father's "name", but instead the title of a work of art, a statue. And I'm not altogether certain what the sources tell us in this case, if anything. P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there 20:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Precious

Four years!

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

To editor Gerda Arendt: thank you so much, you awesome person! P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there 11:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I was looking again at the issue of {{ R comics from alternative name}} which we discussed here a while back. I was thinking of modifying the text of {{ R from alternative name}} and add "another name or identity" to it or creating a new redirect category template such as {{ R from alternative identity in fiction}}. Do you have any thoughts on this? -- Gonnym ( talk) 21:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

To editor Gonnym: hi! good idea! In order to avoid the need for a new rcat and its associated category (which might still be necessary), I've placed new text in {{ R from alternative name/sandbox}} that might fill the bill. What do you think? P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there 10:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems good. If you can, ping me when it goes live as I have a meta template that I'll need updating. -- Gonnym ( talk) 13:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

To editor Gonnym: it's completed (live). P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there 14:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, one more issue I've noticed. I got Yeah. Like Tomatoes, Yeah, Like Tomatoes and Yeah, Just Like Tomatoes (Weeds episode). All 3 titles are valid as they are reported but reliable sources. So {{ R from alternative name}} should be used here, however the template text doesn't really support it (as it sounds like its targeted for individuals and not objects). Maybe add to the end of This is a redirect from a title that is another name or identity such as an alter ego, a pseudonym, a nickname, or a synonym of the target, or of a name associated with the target. ", or of an alternative name for piece of work" or something similar. Elizabeth Tower is another such redirect. -- Gonnym ( talk) 10:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

-- User:Martin Urbanec ( talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

To editor Martin Urbanec: with regret I must respectfully decline due to health reasons. Perhaps next time. Thank you beyond words for asking me. P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there 12:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for closing it. I could have sworn I had done so already. -- DannyS712 ( talk) 00:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Happens to the best of us. It landed in the backlog, I saw that you had renamed the module and I closed it. No problemo! PI Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 00:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I request that you reopen and relist the man bites dog RM at Talk:Man_bites_dog#Requested_move_28_November_2019. It was closed at 18:39, less than half an hour after the latest !vote (mine) at 18:12. I think the question of primary topic needs to be given further consideration given the higher page views of other uses (film and company), as noted in my !vote, and perhaps overlooked by earlier contributors. A fresh look by others could not hurt. Thanks! -- В²C ☎ 18:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

To editor В²C: I'm torn about this one, because from a closer's viewpoint, the RM was open more than 11 days without being relisted, several days beyond the usual 7. Also, support rationales cited both a policy and a guideline that were not effectively rebutted by oppose rationales. Even with your recent !vote there was a clear and definite consensus to rename those pages. So there was no reason to do anything but close the request as moved. Can you produce a reason that overcomes all this? PI Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 19:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The supporters claim primary topic supports the move but with no basis, unless you count "had never heard of a single other thing listed", which is directly contrary to WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT. Only one user besides me even mentioned the page view counts, which show the topic does not only not get enough views to be primary topic, but the other topics - the film and company - each get significantly more! But that user inexplicably discounted those numbers because they thought users seeking the film or company can be expected to use title case in their search. I refuted this, but tagged that user, hoping for further clarification. I think people thought it was simply cut and dried, when it wasn't. So it needs more consideration. -- В²C ☎ 20:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, to contrast, consider Talk:Lest_we_forget_(phrase)#Requested_move_28_November_2019 where the page view counts clearly support the phrase being the primary topic. -- В²C ☎ 21:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The argument that the journalism is the only topic is based on policy ( WP:PRECISE) since all the other uses are called "Man Bites Dog", this is the only topic called "Man bites dog" so it unambiguously defines the topic and distinguishes it from others. So to quote you're words at Talk:Unlikely#Requested move 16 September 2018 "the one and only topic with that name". I agree however that SMALLDETAILS works less well when the more popular or important topic is at a harder to type title, see Talk:George Puscas (sports writer)#Requested move 1 December 2019 for example, but the guideline for it is "small details are usually sufficient to distinguish topics". As far as BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT goes I think that also supports the move since it asks what the average person is likely to know rather than those biased based on location or interest, this is also compliant with the "precise enough to be understood by most people" for the energy example in PRECISE. As far as PT#1 goes its probably not primary topic many readers probably wouldn't capitalize even when looking for proper nouns by by PT#2 its the only topic by this name and is likely primary by that criteria even if we disregard DIFFCAPS. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 09:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

To editor В²C: it is done. PI Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 16:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• I think NAC-ers should reopen on a half-reasonable Request. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • To editor SmokeyJoe: so should admins! PI Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 17:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I generally agree. Much better to have discussion take longer to reach an obvious consensus than to be any perception of supervotes or whatever, and MRV is not time-efficient. An exception, though, is that sometimes it is appropriate for a non-productive discussion to be shut down, why pinch is something that nonadmins shouldn’t be doing. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well PE. MarnetteD| Talk 05:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you beyond words, MarnetteD! PI Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 06:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

You are very welcome PE :-) MarnetteD| Talk 18:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Paine Ellsworth, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, ★Trekker ( talk) 14:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Since you participated in the discussion on Wikipedia Books I herewith inform you that a decision has been taken.

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_176#Suppress_rendering_of_Template:Wikipedia_books Dirk Hünniger ( talk) 20:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I have updated the Ezra Bayda page with new information. I did so previously but it was removed because there was no verifiable reference given. Would you be willing to check the citation to make sure it is the correct form?

/info/en/?search=Ezra_Bayda

/info/en/?search=Ezra_Bayda#cite_ref-10

Mizeditor ( talk) 23:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mizeditor! To be honest with you, the source you used:

• Board of Trustees of the Zen Center of San Diego. Sent from [ [1]]. Email subject: ZCSD Announcement: Findings and Meeting Update. October 22, 2019. Decision on firing of Ezra Bayda. E-mail to Zen Center of San Diego membership

...seems like more of a primary source to me. The policy requires that we use reliable secondary sources to verify such important issues, especially when the article is a bio of a living person. Try to find where someone that is not affiliated nor associated with either the article's subject or the Zen Center of San Diego who has written about the charges and any judicial procedings that may have ensued as a result. Best to you! PI Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 03:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Paine Ellsworth,

Please reopen the Move review at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2020_February#2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak_(closed). I can understand the sentiment of "getting things done/ out the way", but the suggestion I'd made (which you took as the reason to close) rests upon it receiving support (or not, as may be the case). I can't start the whole argument from scratch again on the articles talk page (this is why I was asking "Thoughts ?"). Or put another way - if people disagree or don't support my suggestion, then I'd strongly oppose the move closure being endorsed (rather than overturned) - since the issues I've raised (and which other editors have agreed exist) still stand. Regards, and hoping for a swift response, so as to facilitate other editors chiming in at the MR, Sean Heron ( talk) 16:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
P.S. Considering the amount of time and effort already spent on these RMs, I think its really worth giving it just a bit more time / considered discussion, to actually nail it now!

To editor Sean Heron: yes, I'll do that, but only for you. I wouldn't do it for anyone else but you :>) For what it's worth, I liked your idea about using a separate page, such as a subpage of the article's talk page. That seems to help people stay more focused. It might help for you to check out the Talk:New York (state) page, especially its FAQ and subpages to get some ideas for how to proceed. Hopefully, these issues won't be nearly as convoluted, but you never know. PI Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 19:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh :). Well that's very nice of you, thank you! Thanks also for the suggestions. I have to admit I took a bit of a break after asking you this, and thought I'd check back in later to see how things have played out :P (in general I'd say more pleasantly than I'd expected!).

It seems someone has started an effort to "pre-screen" what a sensible target name would be, went for it without a subpage though. I'm hoping that might lead somewhere, nonetheless! Thanks again, and regards Sean Heron ( talk) 23:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for moving International Loadstar. I never gave a thought to how much work it was. Again, thank you. No reply is needed. Sammy D III ( talk) 19:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Pleasure!  Paine  

I'm probably the only one who really understands what is going on with these pages. The move requests look at just one page rather than the several thousand that I've dealt with. The solution is to leave everything alone, and leave RC dioceses with the RC designation to set them apart from the Byz Catholics, Syro Malabar, etc.

Perhaps you can help me FIX this issue rather than simply reverting. Thank you for your time. I don't want to have to continually move pages that have been moved by people not understanding seeing the big picture and just looking at one page Benkenobi18 ( talk) 00:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

To editor Benkenobi18: forgive me, however on an encyclopedia that has so many people who can edit it, you're probably not the only one who understands what is going on with these pages. The requested move that removed "Roman" from the page title garnered a consensus to do so. I didn't see where you participated in that survey and discussion. If you really want to add back the "Roman", then judging by the evident controversial aspect of it, the only correct way to procede would be to open a new move request and to display your arguments for the "Roman..." title for all interested editors to see. If your arguments are strong, then you stand a good chance of overcoming the previous consensus and garnering a new one. If you need help in this process, then I will be glad to assist you. PI Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 01:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I read the commentary. Brown Haired Girl specifically said that the move impacts more pages than just the one page, and argued that the pages should be consistent rather than a hodgepodge. I'm not around as much anymore so I don't see the messages for the discussions when they happen. Consensus or no, the impact is on the whole of the diocese pages, not just this one. Looking through the pages casually shows that every other diocese in Nordic Europe has "Roman Catholic diocese of X, *except* this one. Hence my frustration. You can check for yourself to confirm. I'm simply restoring the original situation which never should have been changed in the first place. Again, the argument that because the top level articls is Catholic runs into disambig problems that I cited earlier between the rites. This is a RC Latin rite parish and so "Roman Catholic diocese of X is an informative name. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 03:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

There was also strong objection to the removal of "Roman" in that commentary. Your argument seems compelling and just might be enough to sway other editors and gain consensus for the move back to the RC... page title. Best of good fortune to you! PI Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 13:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

"general agreement"! Seriously? Johnbod ( talk) 15:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I saw a rough consensus per the policy with support args stronger than oppose args, having cited both PTOPIC and COMMONNAME. How would you have closed this backlogged request, Johnbod? PI Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 15:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't close things, but I would have been inclined to find no consensus & defaulted to keep. I certainly wouldn't have claimed there was "general agreement", which there clearly wasn't. I thought the more experienced editors tended to oppose. Johnbod ( talk) 15:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

To editor Johnbod: we can see experienced editors both in support and in opposition. And I see no policies or guidelines used to oppose, which makes those args weaker than the support args that cited a policy and a guideline, not to mention WP:CONCISE. So I saw a clear consensus in that move request. Sorry if you disagree, because I do consider you an awesome editor and revere your opinion. Are you sure you don't see a consensus there? PI Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 15:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't normally complain about these things, but "general agreement" is the wrong phrase for 7/5 opinion split. Hyperbolick ( talk) 18:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 February#Familiar. No offense intended. Hyperbolick ( talk) 18:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

To editor Hyperbolick: you opened an MR without first discussing??? And the !vote, which Wikipedia is not, was 8/5 with policies and guidelines all with the supports. No offense taken. PI Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 18:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't see how my discussing would go any differently than Johnbod's. Discussion seems to have been had enough. Hyperbolick ( talk) 18:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Point taken. PI Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 19:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Paine Ellsworth:

There appears to be no consensus, possibly bordering on "oppose move," to move the above-captioned pages to either their real names or the shorter, ambiguous (gamer) parenthetical qualifier. The discussion has already been relisted once, perhaps twice, but even if not twice, it's been de facto relisted due to the backlog of requested moves such that it's been outstanding for the equivalent of 3-4 weeks. It needs closure. I'd list at the applicable noticeboard, but there's a backlog there, too. So, since you're active in closing discussions, I thought I'd reach out to you to assess the consensus and appropriately weigh the arguments?

Thanks,
Doug Mehus T· C 21:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

To editor Doug Mehus: read through that request and found that it seems ineligible for another relisting, and that it is still an ongoing discussion with five !votes and rationales left on the 25th of Feb. I've gone ahead and listed it for closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, even though with the ongoing discussion I'm not sure it's ready for closure yet. With the backlog, that may give the RM time to wind down. I also left a note at the RM that it's been listed for closure. Thank you for considering me, but it appears that an admin should be the one to decide how that request should be closed. PI Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 04:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Dmehus, this looks like an inappropriate request, it looks like canvasing for your choice of closer. You are *heavily* involved in that discussion, including with one inappropriate relist as you were already involved. If you're going to get so involved in a discussion, you should steer very clear of being involved in its close. Leave it even to someone uninvolved to list it at WP:ANRFC, and most certainly do no canvas selected individuals to do the close.

I agree with your response Paine. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

To editor SmokeyJoe: as always, I revere your opinion, especially when it agrees with mine !>) PI Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 05:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I think, Paine, I have a habit of giving you direct and blunt feedback because you are very close to perfect, and I think you can handle it. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Paine Ellsworth and SmokeyJoe: My apologies; I withdraw the request then. I wasn't trying to select a closer, though; I was just seeing if it could be assessed on whether it was ready for closure, and Paine, having closed a lot of requested moves and move reviews seemed like the appropriate person. On a strict nosecount, yes, it's close, but when you consider some of the latter arguments in the last several days, it seemed like there was enough for closure to be ascertained. Doug Mehus T· C 13:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

No problem Doug Mehus, it's all good. PI Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 14:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks for listing it for possible closure at the noticeboard. To clarify SmokeyJoe's comment about my relisting, I actually didn't relist this one; Amakuru did. All I did was add a separate relisting banner common in deletion discussions to help corral new arguments below a certain line. So it wasn't a true involved relist. Doug Mehus T· C 14:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Unlike some editors, I don't have a problem with relistings by involved editors, and I've done it myself. The manual has nothing against it; however, it does remind that one should be prepared to justify it if challenged by another editor. PI Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 14:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
• A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

• Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
• The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.

---

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:R ext. Since you had some involvement with the Template:R ext redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 17:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

thanks for the help with Template:WikiProject History. sorry though, one question; what parameter would I type in order to indicate that an article relates to "contemporary history" task force? I appreciate your help. please ping me when you reply. thanks!!! -- Sm8900 ( talk) 02:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

by the way, I tried to look at Template:WikiProject_United_States, just to get an example of a similar template, and how it uses task forces. they have dozens of task forces, including one for each US state. however, I'm still not sure though, now to enter the actual parameter to indicate the contemporary history task force. I appreciate your help. thanks!!! -- Sm8900 ( talk) 02:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Answered at Template talk:WikiProject History#request for edit. PI Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 05:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Just as a heads-up if you haven't noticed. The RM bot can't parse nominations that have a non-link in them. It lists them on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions as if they have no nomination statement at all, which is clearly incorrect. (In the case of the EWWBL RM, it vomited up a string of characters from the URL, probably because there was a question mark in it.) I mentioned this in the edit summary, but it seemed a little brusque, so here's a comment instead. Nohomersryan ( talk) 03:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Further discussion at User talk:Nohomersryan#Your move request. P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 14:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Guideline and policy news

• There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

• There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

• The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

---

Hi, I'm looking for some help, and it looks like you often help out at Template:Rail interchange. Would you be able to look at my edit request here if you don't mind? Thank you, ɱ (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I've already checked that request, Ɱ, and I don't know enough about the template to make those changes. I'd ask you to make the changes in the template's sandbox, but you might need to achieve a consensus before going to the trouble. Hope this helps a little. P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 01:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Well so, I made the first part of that request already in the sandbox. Could you implement that? It's just the routine adding another transit agency into the template. We can leave the next part for someone/sometime else. ɱ (talk) 02:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

That part has been done – see Template talk:Rail-interchange#Template-protected edit request on 2 April 2020. P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 05:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you please clarify how you closed Talk:Channel 33 (Israel)#Requested move 28 February 2020 as "no consensus"? Looking at the strength of arguments, one side based their arguments on a community supported guideline which is very clear in its implementation, while the other side based it on WP:IDONTLIKEIT (as a side note, I'd say that your closing argument that the guideline was "rebutted" is very bad). Looking at a pure head count, you have 5 vs 3.5. In both cases there is a clear consensus to what the title should be and in this case isn't even a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS case. The fact that the RM was opened for a long time isn't a reason to close it. It was opened for over a month with a 3-1 and yet it was left open (a cynic would say that it was left open so that the close would not be for what it was leading to). -- Gonnym ( talk) 23:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Please be explicit, Gonnym. What is it exactly that you want me to do? P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 03:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I thought I was pretty explicit in asking you to please clarify how you closed Talk:Channel 33 (Israel)#Requested move 28 February 2020 as "no consensus"?. What was your criteria for closing? As I've shown above, it couldn't be guideline based or number based, so I'm really interested to understand if there is an actual reason here or if this was some kind of supervote. -- Gonnym ( talk) 11:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I thought I was pretty explicit in my unusually wordy closing statement. I see no consensus in that discussion. So I just need to know how you would like to proceed. Your options are 1) tell me to leave things as they are, and 2) tell me to reopen and relist. I can do either, so again, what is it that you want me to do? P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 16:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Paine Ellsworth. Can you provide or point me to the background for the additions of redlink (delete to make way for page move) such as this one? Thanks. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 10:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

To editor JHunterJ: that is my way of dealing with some move requests that end up at WP:RM#Possibly incomplete requests, which are a type of malformed request. The RMCD bot began this sort a few weeks ago, so I started looking for ways to deal with those RMs. We don't get too many; however they do need to be "fixed" when they happen. I'm open to suggestions for a better way to deal with them, because this way is not perfect. P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 15:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

While possibly incomplete (whatever that means), they don't seem to be malformed though, at least not until they get marked as if they include a move to (delete to make way for page move). Why do they need to get changed (not fixed) when they happen? And when changing them, please stop calling them malformed, but do make a note in the discussion or proposal that you've edited them, please. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 18:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that. However they are malformed. One of the rules we follow is that a target or new title cannot be non-redirected content unless the request shows that the target page is also being renamed or deleted. So to move a title like Ross Bagdasarian Sr. to Ross Bagdasarian, one must first either move the latter to a different title or second, one must delete the page to make way for the page move. That is the malformity that must be fixed. P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 20:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Until your edits, I have never seen an RM that showed a navigation-page-to-be-clobbered as being "moved" to the redlink (delete to make way for page move). The RM instructions just say to list all required moves, and when the result is confirmed, any such navigation pages rendered superfluous by the requested move I've summarily clobbered in resolving them. But I have seen confusion in the discussion from the odd this-move-indicates-deletion and queries going to the requester, who isn't able to explain. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 01:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Read this in another language • Subscription list

The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. The goal of the talk pages project is to help contributors communicate on wiki more easily. This project is the result of the Talk pages consultation 2019.

The team is building a new tool for replying to comments now. This early version can sign and indent comments automatically. Please test the new Reply tool.

• On 31 March 2020, the new reply tool was offered as a Beta Feature editors at four Wikipedias: Arabic, Dutch, French, and Hungarian. If your community also wants early access to the new tool, contact User:Whatamidoing (WMF).
• The team is planning some upcoming changes. Please review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page. The team will test features such as:
  • an easy way to mention another editor ("pinging"),
  • a rich-text visual editing option, and
  • other features identified through user testing or recommended by editors.

To hear more about Editing Team updates, please add your name to the "Get involved" section of the project page. You can also watch these pages: the main project page, Updates, Replying, and User testing.

– PPelberg (WMF) ( talk) & Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 15:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Why is the bot doing that? Is it a glitch in the code? NASCARfan0548  ↗ 17:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

To editor NASCARfan0548: got a call in to the bot to see wassup. P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 18:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey! Sorry, I may have rolledback an edit you did on Talk:The Torch (St. John's University) by accident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehrpw ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

No problemo. It's all good. P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 03:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

To editor Mehrpw: looked at this again and saw that you closed your own move request, and sorry but that is out of process, so I reopened the request. Move requests must be closed by non-participating, objective editors. Suggest you give WP:RM and associated pages a good read. P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 09:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

To editor Paine Ellsworth: Thank you for the correction, I missed that policy so I'll certainly take another look at Wikipedia:Requested moves. All the best, Mehrpw ( talk) 11:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Pleasure!  Paine  

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

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

• Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
• Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
• A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
• A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news

• The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
• Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

---

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sarah Kaufman (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Kaufman (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Uygurche ( talk) 23:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Edvige Antonia Albina Màino. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 3#Edvige Antonia Albina Màino until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Akhiljaxxn ( talk) 12:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I am after many years still a beginner so I apologise if this is too trivial for someone who is obviously used to dealing with much more important subjects than this. But this is the very basis of science - the question of whether "the speed of light c, in a vacuum" is correct, or "the speed of light in vacuum c" is correct. I find the latter like yourself awkward and perhaps misleading to someone new to the subject. But my corrections have been removed twice. I am not happy with the present wording as it is not normal English and I am clearly being overtaken by editors who are better at working through the system. You have, like me, tried to place the common English but those with more stamina take over. I would like to know if you accepted the change because it was not worth the effort, or perhaps for another reason. That a vacuum is a condition and not a place is one argument which sounds like it could be plausible, but reading this, it always irritates my sense of correctness. Should I just leave this and get on with something more constructive, or try to fix it, since that is the very point in wikipedia - getting the clearest most transparent explanation possible? Thanks for your positive contributions - wikipedia should be FUN!2020 05 12 23:46 MET Ref:international system of units — Preceding unsigned comment added by Do better ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

To editor Do better: hello and thank you! both for your contributions and for coming to my talk page. First of all, no improvement is too trivial for me. I do a lot of copy editing, one of my latest was at NCIS (TV series) where I replaced "a eighteenth season" with "an eighteenth season". Little mistakes like that are why we're here, us Wikignomes. Of course, the error I corrected was unquestionably incorrect, so it wasn't challenged. The issue you bring up above isn't as "cut and dried", and it seems more a matter of taste than of correct English. For those who love commas (I myself am not a lover of commas, the fewer the better) it might be more correct if "the speed of light in a vacuum, c" were used; however, I myself would find it just as acceptable without the comma, but not quite as acceptable as "the speed of light c, in a vacuum" or "the speed of light c in a vacuum". I probably acquiesced because I was drawn by issues I deemed more deeply important to encyclopedia improvement. I have become involved with helping editors with their edit requests and their page move requests, so that takes up a lot of my time, lately. You will find your niche, Do better, just keep looking, and try not to be too put off by the sometimes inexplicable actions of other editors. They are usually just trying to improve Wikipedia, like you and me. Let me know if I can help you with anything, and yes, have as much fun editing as you possibly can! P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 04:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed response. I agree with you fully and to see "speed of light in vacuum c" insinuates that the vacuum is c and not the speed of light. Hence I will go and try changing this again, but wish to avoid disputes as it wastes everyone's time. Considering the amount of time needed to make one tiny correction, only to find that it is reversed by someone who is doggedly fixed on keeping his version, takes the fun away, but your positive comments alleviate the pain. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Do better ( talk • contribs) 17:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussions above are closed. Please do not modify them. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section of this discussion page. No further edits should be made to the above discussions.

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

Administrator changes

CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth

Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
• The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.

Arbitration

• A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

---

Category:Redirect category templates has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 17:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)