User talk: Paine Ellsworth

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Giraffa camelopardalis angolensis (head).jpg
'Wikipedia is a community effort of staggering proportions!'

I am not an administrator. Wouldn't mind being one, although don't really want to be. Wouldn't mind being an admin because I deeply respect many admins and have been helped by them numerous times over the years. I also respect the community vettings at RfA that show the ultimate trust of an editor. Don't really want to be an admin because I guess I'm just too old to go through that sometimes grueling community vetting.

So I shall remain a non-admin caught between two worlds... the world of the admins, which means I'm expected not to close controversial discussions (which I sometimes do, sometimes don't), and the world of less experienced editors who don't want me to close the "easy" discussions (which I also sometimes do, sometimes don't), and save those for them. If it's in the backlog, then it's fair game!

Anyway, if you have come to ask about one of my RfC, RM, MRV or other discussion closures, you are more than welcome! I am prone to change a decision when I'm asked to do so. Please be explicit about your intentions and do not beat around the bush. Thank you for your deeply respected concerns!

'they help us keep our minds sharp!'

Just registered?[edit]

Discussions and notifications...collapsedclick [show] to open them, then click the section title in the Table of Contents above
The following are closed discussions. Please do not modify them. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bold in the opening of an animal article[edit]

Hi, I personally agree with this edit. However, Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals#Article content says not to do this (although it's ok for plant articles). Peter coxhead (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I wonder why the WikiProject insists on that? There is usually a redirect at the scientific name, which means that science-inclined readers might very well type the Genus species name into a search engine, and on Wikipedia that often takes them to the common name article. Following the principle of least astonishment for readers, redirect titles really should be in boldtype so readers will more easily and readily know why they landed on a title they did not type into the search engine. That's the way I've been doing this for many years, and I think that paragraph on the WikiProject page does not follow the least astonishment principle. Thank you, Peter, for letting me know! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 23:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, I agree with you entirely. I think the reason is that editors dislike the continuous bold in something like "redback spider (Latrodectus hasseltii)" or "Latrodectus hasseltii (redback spider)", believing that it doesn't make it clear that there are two names. However, this was already the policy when I started editing spider articles (mostly I stick to plants). So I usually write something like "redback spider, scientific name Latrodectus hasseltii" or "Latrodectus hasseltii, known as the redback spider". It's very rare that anyone changes this to the WP:ANIMALS preferred format. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that[edit]

Hey sorry about undoing your edit on the Labyrinth EP page, I completely forgot I was on the album page and not the single page. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It's all good, Carlobunnie, and thank you for coming to my talk page! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 00:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


  • Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
  • The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Government of Victoria RM[edit]

Hey there! I saw that you closed the RM for Government of Victoria as having no consensus, but as per the previous comment from an uninvolved editor, there was consensus to move the article - the only thing that needed discussing was exacts of the target title (capitalisation of "State Government"), which was actually agreed on. I don't really want to go down the rabbit hole that is move reviews, but I feel as though this was possibly overlooked, especially considering that there was an already declared consensus for moving the article, and there was unanimous support after that for the target title (Victoria State Governent). ItsPugle (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey there, ItsPugle! I just looked again, and unfortunately, I still see no real agreement about renaming the page. Even though you and others responded well to opposers and to those who disagreed with the proper noun phrase idea, you didn't seem to change their minds, that is, no one actually changed their mind about either leaving the title as is or moving it to a title different from the one you requested. I'm sorry but I definitely did not see "unanimous support" for any title that was discussed. So the choices, based upon the discussion and timestamps are twofold... 1) leave things as they are, look for ways to strengthen your arguments and try again in a few months to request a page move, or 2) even though the RM is about a month old and was relisted once about three weeks ago, the discussion can be relisted once more to see if a consensus can be garnered after another week. Which way do you want to go? Leave it as is? or reopen? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 22:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I think, if it's okay, that relisting it might be worthwhile. I'll ping all those who have engaged with it to try and stimulate some more discussion, too. Oh, and when I mean unanimious support, I mean my little comment underneath ProcrastinatingReader's (which really was only two people, so not quite unanimous in the grand scheme!). The last opposition to the RM was also a bit funky, since they said some factually incorrect things - but they didn't get back to me so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ItsPugle (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
To ItsPugle: the closure has been overturned and the request has been relisted. Thank you for coming to my talk page! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 18:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for being such a great wikipedian! <3 ItsPugle (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2020 #3[edit]

On 16 March 2020, the 50 millionth edit was made using the visual editor on desktop.

Seven years ago this week, the Editing team made the visual editor available by default to all logged-in editors using the desktop site at the English Wikipedia. Here's what happened since its introduction:

  • The 50 millionth edit using the visual editor on desktop was made this year. More than 10 million edits have been made here at the English Wikipedia.
  • More than 2 million new articles have been created in the visual editor. More than 600,000 of these new articles were created during 2019.
  • Almost 5 million edits on the mobile site have been made with the visual editor. Most of these edits have been made since the Editing team started improving the mobile visual editor in 2018.
  • The proportion of all edits made using the visual editor has been increasing every year.
  • Editors have made more than 7 million edits in the 2017 wikitext editor, including starting 600,000 new articles in it. The 2017 wikitext editor is VisualEditor's built-in wikitext mode. You can enable it in your preferences.
  • On 17 November 2019, the first edit from outer space was made in the mobile visual editor.
  • In 2019, 35% of the edits by newcomers, and half of their first edits, were made using the visual editor. This percentage has been increasing every year since the tool became available.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


*Reopen and relist. <uninvolved> Going out on a limb here, because it appears to me that the closer did not correctly assess the validity of the oppose rationales. "Clearly the primary topic"? Page views say no, as well as long-term significance says no. So apologies to the closer, and believe me I'm never happy with an editor who fails to discuss these first with the closer, but this looks like an "Oh what the heck, five opposes so 'not moved' just MUST be the right way to go," kind of non-closure. There is no PTOPIC here, so the dab page is needed and should be at the base name. (imho) P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 05:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

    • I think a "reopen" is inappropriate, and even before the close, a "relist" would have been inappropriate. to begin with, the RM rationale is poor, below standard. "... I want to hear from other contributors. I don't really understand ..." is not a considered proposal for consensus decision making, it should have been a talk page post. Second, the editor who made a comment motivating the RM gave a very strong negative !vote. Third, the discussion already had four respondents in SNOW opposition. I am normally a strong proponent of good explanations for closes, but not in the case of unanimous opposition. It is not OK for the nominator to demand answers to their comments just because they initiated a formal RM process. There is room for further discussion, but the case does not look to be there that anything needs urgent fixing, and it looks like there is no better outcome than the status quo sitting in the wings. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) You know how loath I am to disagree with you, SmokeyJoe; however, in this case all of the oppose rationales were either specific about the topic presently at the base name as the primary topic, non-specific at all in terms as to why they opposed, or they merely agreed with the above opposers. So they all should have been thrown out. The page should have been renamed with a qualifier and the dab page moved to the base name. Poor closure! Let's say I had closed the RM, discounted the opposes and moved the pages. Now let's say one of the opposers opened an MRV against my closure. Wikipedia is not a democracy! Would you have BADNAC'd my close? or would you have seen through the poor oppose rationales and endorsed my close? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 06:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Paine Ellsworth, I hope "loath" is not really the right word. I actually enjoy disagreeing with you, because I see evidence that we both learn from the experience. The evidence in not to be found in answers given, but subsequent behaviours. I hope I don't upset you with bluntness; I could word things with more gentility, but if I did I would write a lot less.

If the closer were to have thrown out the "oppose" !votes, and moved per a line of logic, I would be very quick with a knee-jerk "WP:Supervote". A thought-test of this is: if the closer were to make that !vote, would the "oppose" !voters reverse their !votes? In the above case, I do not believe it would be likely.

I believe that a closer should take a very conservative role in respecting the prevailing discussion. If that discussion is misguided, the answer is to steer it better by participating. I think this is essential, not for the correct decision, but for the community to feel that they are respected in community consensus decision making. In these review forums, I deliberately resist looking though the mud of poor arguments to see the truth.

Should my cry be "BADNAC" or "Supervote" or "Bad close"? I am not sure, but I like "BADNAC" for the excellent advice for NACers that can be found at WP:BADNAC. A BADNAC would not be a good close if it were performed by an admin. What's different is that admins seem to take being taken to DRV or MR much more seriously than NACers, and they don't seem to need to read the advice. Sometimes, admins make closes that look like arbitrary decisions, but when pushed, and it takes DRV or MR to do the pushing, they are able to justify themselves, where NACers sometimes don't even answer.

Where to go from here? I suggest that if you really think there is a good justification to the move in the face of four firmly states oppose !votes, then, after a pause, you should launch a new RM with a better rationale. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

It's all good, SmokeyJoe, it's all good. So you think that if as many as five editors oppose a page move, in which the only support is the editor who requested the move, and all five rationales go against community consensus (which they did), we should just coddle them and allow their poor judgement to stand? Apparently, judging by the other endorsers and the MRV closer, that's just what we should do. I've already considered opening a new RM, but with a firm not moved and a firmer MRV endorsement, it will be at least a year before there is any possibility of success. I was just being ironic, sarcastic me with the "loath" comment, so don't go getting all insecure on me (heh). It's all good my friend, all good! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 15:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Just coddle them? No.
Firstly, I think the root cause of failure was the poor RM opening statement. Poor opening statements seem to invoke knee jerk opposition.
When five people in a row are wrong, perhaps knee jerk groupthinking, then the answer is to speak up, not supervote. If it’s too late, as it was in this case as MR does not welcome new arguments, then I think there’s good applicable advice in WP:RENOM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm back/thanks for checking on me[edit]

Hey, thanks for checking in on me (like a year and a half ago). Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner; I just really needed a complete break from my online communities for a while. I'm doing good now though. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

To Jackmcbarn: that is so good to hear! and thank you beyond words for letting me know! Paine  20:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded EuryalusSQL
removed JujutacularMonty845RettetastMadchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed KeeganOpabinia regalisPremeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 2020[edit]

Requested move of Dylan Brady (producer)[edit]

"6 months to a year" moratorium is pretty arbitrary, and certainly not meriting a procedural close. I have attended many RMs where an unsuccessful request was followed mere days later by a successful one. Schierbecker (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Waiting times are just a measure of success, that is, the longer one waits, the more likely the move request will succeed. When the decision is "no consensus", the suggested waiting time is 2 to 6 months, and when the decision is "moved" or "not moved", then the waiting time is 6 months to a year. Anything less and many editors consider it disruptive and a waste of time. There is nothing hard and fast about this kind of moratorium, so if you want to risk the disdain of other editors, then go ahead and reopen. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 03:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

"Great ape" and "Great apes" redirects[edit]

I know I still have much to learn about the definition of printability, as its practical application by other editors has not always been consistent.

As I understand, Great ape and Great apes cannot both be printworthy even though they are redirects to scientific names, since they would not be given separate listings in a print encyclopedia. I noticed that the former was being categorized as both printworthy and unprintworthy, so I fixed it.

The issue I have is with the choice of the plural title as (more) printworthy: It seems contrary to the spirit of WP:SINGULAR, especially the "Horse/Horses" example given within. I say "spirit" instead of "letter" because I know WP:SINGULAR is about article titles and does not aim to prescribe printability of redirects.

To what extent does the guideline about singular titles extend to redirects? Are certain biological classifications treated specially?

Also, why must the less-printworthy title be explicitly unprintworthy? Isn't this a rare case in which "printability unknown" could be acceptable? Alternatively, should there be a concept of multiple levels of printworthy, paralleling the distinction between unprintworthy {{R from miscapitalisation}} for which links "should be updated" and {{R from other capitalisation}} not necessarily so? Thanks for enlightening me... --SoledadKabocha (talk) 05:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

To SoledadKabocha: printability/printworthiness often escapes us all, so none of us can expect to be right about it in every case. Having said that, I usually call printable a redirect that is actually mentioned in a hatnote, as is Great apes. So if the dab page had been left at Great ape (disambiguation) and "Great ape" was in the Hominidae hatnote instead of "Great apes", then "Great ape" would have been the printable redirect. Has nothing to do with plurals being printable and singulars not, or vice versa.
The rest of your inquiry has to do with the final reason for printability. A redirect is printable if it belongs in a printed version of Wikipedia, and is unprintable if it does not belong. There is no in-between, no gray area that I can see. Unknown printability helps no one, so somebody should make the choice, sometimes based on only a "best guess" scenario. Most of the time, other capitalization is just as unprintworthy as miscapitalization, and there may be exceptions to both, I would think. Which of those "multiple levels of printworthy" would be expected to be used in a printed version and which would not?
For several years now, I have honestly appreciated and revered your participation in redirect categorizing, so please don't misunderstand me when I say that printability can already be really complicated, and I see no good reason to make it even more complex. Thank you beyond words for asking! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 06:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I was grasping at straws in the last paragraph, as the comment was meant to suggest. I was not expecting to have made any logically valid excuse. I am aware that before replying, you removed one of the {{R mentioned in hatnote}} templates; my bad for not seeing myself that it was outdated.
My original thought about multiple levels of printability was meant to parallel the "Appendix" namespace used on Wiktionary and some non-English Wikipedias. I was also toying with the idea of proposing WP1.0 to split the Redirect assessment class into multiple classes, even if just replicating the current definition of printability, but I realize that is neither relevant to this discussion nor has any chance of gaining consensus. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

"Template:Malaysian name" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Malaysian name. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 10#Template:Malaysian name until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2020[edit]

Editing news 2020 #4[edit]

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this newsletter

Reply tool[edit]

The number of comments posted with the Reply Tool from March through June 2020. People used the Reply Tool to post over 7,400 comments with the tool.

The Reply tool has been available as a Beta Feature at the Arabic, Dutch, French and Hungarian Wikipedias since 31 March 2020. The first analysis showed positive results.

  • More than 300 editors used the Reply tool at these four Wikipedias. They posted more than 7,400 replies during the study period.
  • Of the people who posted a comment with the Reply tool, about 70% of them used the tool multiple times. About 60% of them used it on multiple days.
  • Comments from Wikipedia editors are positive. One said, أعتقد أن الأداة تقدم فائدة ملحوظة؛ فهي تختصر الوقت لتقديم رد بدلًا من التنقل بالفأرة إلى وصلة تعديل القسم أو الصفحة، التي تكون بعيدة عن التعليق الأخير في الغالب، ويصل المساهم لصندوق التعديل بسرعة باستخدام الأداة. ("I think the tool has a significant impact; it saves time to reply while the classic way is to move with a mouse to the Edit link to edit the section or the page which is generally far away from the comment. And the user reaches to the edit box so quickly to use the Reply tool.")[1]

The Editing team released the Reply tool as a Beta Feature at eight other Wikipedias in early August. Those Wikipedias are in the Chinese, Czech, Georgian, Serbian, Sorani Kurdish, Swedish, Catalan, and Korean languages. If you would like to use the Reply tool at your wiki, please tell User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF).

The Reply tool is still in active development. Per request from the Dutch Wikipedia and other editors, you will be able to customize the edit summary. (The default edit summary is "Reply".) A "ping" feature is available in the Reply tool's visual editing mode. This feature searches for usernames. Per request from the Arabic Wikipedia, each wiki will be able to set its own preferred symbol for pinging editors. Per request from editors at the Japanese and Hungarian Wikipedias, each wiki can define a preferred signature prefix in the page MediaWiki:Discussiontools-signature-prefix. For example, some languages omit spaces before signatures. Other communities want to add a dash or a non-breaking space.

New requirements for user signatures[edit]

  • The new requirements for custom user signatures began on 6 July 2020. If you try to create a custom signature that does not meet the requirements, you will get an error message.
  • Existing custom signatures that do not meet the new requirements will be unaffected temporarily. Eventually, all custom signatures will need to meet the new requirements. You can check your signature and see lists of active editors whose custom signatures need to be corrected. Volunteers have been contacting editors who need to change their custom signatures. If you need to change your custom signature, then please read the help page.

Next: New discussion tool[edit]

Next, the team will be working on a tool for quickly and easily starting a new discussion section to a talk page. To follow the development of this new tool, please put the New Discussion Tool project page on your watchlist.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse ping list[edit]

Hello Paine Ellsworth! I am compiling a list/directory of editors with subject-specific expertise at User:Usedtobecool/Tea intended to be used by regular hosts at the Teahouse, to ping editors to help answer queries that are about to get archived unanswered. I was wondering if you would be interested in being listed? I thought of you for questions about "editing templates" and complex "wiki markup" that regular hosts have trouble figuring out; should not occur more than a few times a year. If you are interested, please check the list out, and add yourself to any and all categories you would be able to help with. Because teahouse posts get archived within 3 days, the more editors listed, the better chance there would be of finding an editor actively editing at the time assistance is required. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for thinking of me, Usedtobecool! It would be a pleasure to help when I can. I have a lot on my plate right now, online and off, so there might be times when my availability is low. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 20:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Paine Ellsworth, I have added you accordingly. The intention is to make sure you don't get any pings except when your contribution history indicates you would be available. Hopefully, it will work as intended most of the time, and at the very least, at least a few posts that would otherwise go unanswered will be covered after the list becomes available. That no editor can always be available is the fundamental assumption; so I would not worry about it. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added Eddie891
removed AngelaJcw69Just ChillingPhilg88Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

See You When I Am Famous[edit]

Hi Paine Ellsworth -- I know you have a lot going on, so no rush to answer this. But I'm curious about your close at Talk:See You When I Am Famous. While I know the numbers (7 support, 4 oppose) are one of those borderline situations that could be a move or a no consensus if the !votes all use strong arguments, I personally found the oppose rationales extraordinarily weak and all relying on ignoring aspects of the guidelines they cited (obviously my bias is clear!). So I'd be curious which !votes you found held water, as it was somewhat of an unusual case of the oppose !votes each having different rationales. The list below is certainly my biased rewording, but would still appreciate your thoughts:

  • The title is a stylism and therefore should not be used (even though the cited guideline in that !vote clearly states that when sources are clear in their use of a style it should be used, regardless of style)
  • Sources are all too recent, so we should assume they will change in the future. Just because all sources use the proposed title, we cannot assume they meant to do so as they probably copied and pasted (this one was, quite frankly just silly)
  • Sources are too low quality, so even though they are consistent we should ignore them, contrary to what the stylism guidelines say to do (is there any precedent for that? if sources are too low quality then the article should be deleted, otherwise I see no indication in our titling guidelines that we should ignore them).
  • The repeated ! is technically the same as a name without any punctuation, so the shorter version is concise and therefore preferred even if though it is not commonly used in sources.

Appreciate your thoughts and time.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Be honest with you, Yaksar, I saw two relistings and at first was ready to call it a "rough consensus to rename"; however, the more I thought about it, the more it seemed that the existing sources indicated that it was just "too soon" to go with the 12 exclamation points. It was then that I knew that if I closed the RM as "moved", it would be construed as a supervote and a badnac. You did provide some strong arguments and rebuttals, so if you think it would be warranted, I would be happy to reopen it and relist a third time. At this point, it could go either way but it's iffy. I do think that if we wait two or three months, the sources and the args could be made even stronger during that period. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 19:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Appreciate the reply. I'm admittedly somewhat confused by the "too soon" argument -- it would be one thing if it was a proposal to move away from the title used in sources, but if we are arguing it is too soon to tell what the long term title would be, wouldn't the only alternative be to use the title based on current sourcing, vs. using the one not used in sourcing? It seems fairly WP:CRYSTALBALL to say that it's too soon to know what sources will say and that in the meantime we should remain at a title that would only be acceptable if sources change their approach in the future.
I'm also shocked you aren't an admin, you are one of those cases where I had just assumed (although all I had to do was read your page where you actually explain)! And I agree relisting won't necessarily be best because I don't want to come across as just shopping for a different closure, but I'd argue that, when limiting it to arguments based on what our guidelines and policy actually say, the consensus is actually clear.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
So sorry, didn't mean to be confusing. "Too soon" was just the impression I got from the participants in the RM. That's not to say that I'm crystal balling it; actually just the opposite. None of us can say, so we can only hope that the sources will increase in both number and quality. As for adminship, I do respect it and have been helped a zillion times by some pretty awesome admins, but I do not want to be one. I don't know how much time I have left and I'd like to spend it doing as much of what I want to do as I can. Thank you for the kind thoughts, though! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 20:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! I will probably circle back and re-propose in a few months. And I totally get that, if you enjoy doing what you do then why complicate it!--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you move these?[edit]

Hi User:Paine Ellsworth can you move Gauhar Khan Tanaaz Irani & Sanjjanaa page now as it’s been a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:4c8:54:9b5e:d9ed:c00e:4bbe:846b (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP 2a01+, move requests should go a full week, seven days, to give any interested editors time to !vote and leave their reasons. Two of those have gone about five days and one is only four days old, so forgive me because I don't like to close requests too early. I'll keep an eye on them, so please don't be impatient. Thank you for asking! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 09:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
PS. Also two things... please be sure to sign all your talk page questions and comments with 4 tildes, as in ~~~~. And please consider becoming a registered user. Thanks again! PS left by P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 09:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi User:Paine Ellsworth it’s been 7 days for the request move for Gauhar Khan and Tanaaz Irani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:4c8:55:da89:7c2a:37bd:f8e4:ebc5 (talk) 08:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi User:Paine Ellsworth no one has moved Gauhar and Tannaz page yet it’s been 7 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:4c8:55:da89:44af:86b4:d57c:9b4b (talk) 08:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
It causes me extra work to add your signature to your posts, so please please please sign your posts on my talk page!!! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 08:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Why is no one moving Gauhar Khan Tanaaz Irani page as it’s been 7 days since it has been requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:55:DA89:F5BC:59E9:CFB4:CCBA (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
There are several other move requests ahead of them that are backlogged in the list. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 12:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Please is there any chance if you could go these two first please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:55:DA89:1811:2C26:54DA:9EB0 (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Please be patient, there is no deadline. Because you have solicited me to close them, it would be inappropriate for me to do so. Forgive me please because you will have to wait for another editor to close or relist those requests. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 13:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Move on Israel–United Arab Emirates agreement[edit]

While I understand the first procedural close even though I disagree with it (on Bahrain-Israel normalization agreement the closer had no problem in reformatting the dash) your argument on the second close I do not think was done correctly. Simply because there was a consensus for something else doesn't preclude consensus changing ("Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments"). In fact, it was about to as shown by the unanimous support on my first move request. Very likely, nobody thought of the name at the time, so while there was strong support for Israel–United Arab Emirates agreement at the time most people didn't know of the other option. Because of that, I'm thinking of bringing that move to WP:Move review unless you wouldn't mind reopening the move request. Zoozaz1 (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

While Move review is certainly an option, your argument would probably just get bogged down there due to the sluggish nature of Move review. I understand what you are trying to accomplish... you have a new argument that has not yet been considered. So I see no reason why that new argument shouldn't get a chance. I'll be happy to reopen. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 13:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd appreciate that, thanks for the quick reply. Zoozaz1 (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Favor: incompatible redirects[edit]

Might I bug you for a favor? I'd like to add some checks to Twinkle's redirect tagging, to prevent incompatible tags from being added. Some of these are obvious to me — {{R printworthy}} and {{R unprintworthy}} are the easiest examples — but others get a little confusing, and I'm not entirely sure how strict to be on things like miscapitalization and short names. You're who I'd first think of for advice, so I wonder what you'd suggest. The current list in Twinkle is below:

Current rcats used by Twinkle
  1. {{R from acronym}}
  2. {{R from initialism}}
  3. {{R from MathSciNet abbreviation}}
  4. {{R from NLM abbreviation}}
  5. {{R from CamelCase}}
  6. {{R from other capitalisation}}
  7. {{R from miscapitalisation}}
  8. {{R from modification}}
  9. {{R from plural}}
  10. {{R to plural}}
  11. {{R from verb}}
  12. {{R from adjective}}
  13. {{R from alternative spelling}}
  14. {{R from ASCII-only}}
  15. {{R from diacritic}}
  16. {{R to diacritic}}
  17. {{R from misspelling}}
  18. {{R from alternative name}}
  19. {{R from ambiguous sort name}}
  20. {{R from former name}}
  21. {{R from historic name}}
  22. {{R from incomplete name}}
  23. {{R from incorrect name}}
  24. {{R from less specific name}}
  25. {{R from long name}}
  26. {{R from more specific name}}
  27. {{R from short name}}
  28. {{R from sort name}}
  29. {{R from synonym}}
  30. {{R from birth name}}
  31. {{R from given name}}
  32. {{R from name with title}}
  33. {{R from person}}
  34. {{R from personal name}}
  35. {{R from pseudonym}}
  36. {{R from surname}}
  37. {{R from drug trade name}}
  38. {{R from filename}}
  39. {{R from molecular formula}}
  40. {{R to scientific name}}
  41. {{R from scientific name}}
  42. {{R from alternative scientific name}}
  43. {{R from scientific abbreviation}}
  44. {{R to monotypic taxon}}
  45. {{R from monotypic taxon}}
  46. {{R taxon with possibilities}}
  47. {{R from name and country}}
  48. {{R from more specific geographic name}}
  49. {{R to anchor}}
  50. {{R avoided double redirect}}
  51. {{R from file metadata link}}
  52. {{R to list entry}}
  53. {{R to section}}
  54. {{R from shortcut}}
  55. {{R from template shortcut}}
  56. {{R from ambiguous term}}
  57. {{R to disambiguation page}}
  58. {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}
  59. {{R from incorrect disambiguation}}
  60. {{R from other disambiguation}}
  61. {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}
  62. {{R from duplicated article}}
  63. {{R with history}}
  64. {{R from move}}
  65. {{R from merge}}
  66. {{R from remote talk page}}
  67. {{R to category namespace}}
  68. {{R to help namespace}}
  69. {{R to main namespace}}
  70. {{R to portal namespace}}
  71. {{R to project namespace}}
  72. {{R to user namespace}}
  73. {{R from book}}
  74. {{R from album}}
  75. {{R from song}}
  76. {{R from television episode}}
  77. {{R from fictional character}}
  78. {{R from fictional element}}
  79. {{R from fictional location}}
  80. {{R to article without mention}}
  81. {{R to decade}}
  82. {{R from domain name}}
  83. {{R from phrase}}
  84. {{R from list topic}}
  85. {{R from member}}
  86. {{R to related topic}}
  87. {{R from related word}}
  88. {{R from school}}
  89. {{R from subtopic}}
  90. {{R to subtopic}}
  91. {{R from Unicode character}}
  92. {{R from Unicode code}}
  93. {{R with possibilities}}
  94. {{R from ISO 4 abbreviation}}
  95. {{R from ISO 639 code}}
  96. {{R printworthy}}
  97. {{R unprintworthy}}

Anything that jumps out to you, or any suggestions at all would be most welcome! ~ Amory (utc)

To Amory: thank you, it's an honor to try to help! I have the same problem sometimes, because the template and maintenance category creators were not always clear about their intent. So when I'm confused by an rcat application, I check the documentation. If that doesn't help me, I try the category to get examples of previous usage. The printworthiness rcats are for me the hardest – it's often a judgement call as to what is or is not printworthy, and in those cases I take my best guess; see WP:PRINTABILITY.
It might also be important to note that those two rcats are sometimes applied automatically, such as how {{R with possibilities}} auto-applies {{R printworthy}}. The printworthiness rcat template should still be added to the redirect so the information provided by it can be read by editors. Also, care must be taken not to apply the opposite printworthiness template. An example would be to tag a redirect with {{R with possibilities}} and {{R unprintworthy}}. If that is done, then the redirect would populate both Category:Printworthy redirects and Category:Unprintworthy redirects.
{{R from miscapitalisation}} can be a little tricky as opposed to {{R from other capitalisation}}. I use the latter for mainspace-only titles that might work as article titles and are not obvious miscaps. And I only use miscaps for those redirect titles in any namespace that are obviously incorrect capitalizations.
{{R from short name}} can be used with human-name redirects that are either short forms of a person's name or they include initials. That template is also used with any shorter name of a non-human title that may also be commonly searched. Reverse all that for {{R from long name}}.
Another tricky thing is I try not to include a parent category when a subcategory works best. An example would be [[<Title> (disambiguation)]] redirects that should be tagged with {{R to disambiguation page}} rather than its parent {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}, which is used on its talk page if it exists.
I hope this has been helpful, and if you think of anything else, I'll try my best. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful! When I get a chance to think through it, I'll let you know what I come up with, but this is helpful. ~ Amory (utc) 18:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
And thank you for asking! I did extensive work a few years back on the /doc pages of the rcats, so hopefully they can be of help to you, as well as the existing examples in each category. Please let me know if you have any other specific examples I can help you with! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 18:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Serbian military[edit]

Hello! I hope its fine that I ask for your assistance directly here, instead of filing a formal edit request at Template talk:Country data Serbia. Can you please make the following changes from the flags to the seals:

1. File:Emblem of the Serbian Armed Forces.svg for {armed forces|Serbia}}

2. File:Emblem of the Serbian Land Forces.svg for {army|Serbia}}

3. File:RFVSAmblem.png for {naval|Serbia}}

4. File:Serbian Air Force and Air Defence coat of arms.svg for {air force|Serbia}} (as well as chaging its link to Serbian Air Force and Air Defence, to avoid the Serbian Air Force redirect)

Sundostund (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

To Sundostund: first glance it seems "naval" and "navy" yield odd results, so I will do a little research and then make changes. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 18:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
To Sundostund:  done, and since there seems to be an oddity in the way the {{Country showdata}} documentation template depicts "navy" vs. "naval", it was decided to make them both the same (if one is removed, then it would cause problems on pages where it is transcluded). Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 19:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020[edit]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added AjpolinoLuK3
readded Jackmcbarn
removed Ad OrientemHarejLidLomnMentoz86Oliver PereiraXJaM
renamed There'sNoTimeTheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


Hi Paine, the move discussion at Talk:Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (short story collection)#Requested move 12 September 2020 has finally been closed, but only the short story article was moved per the closer's notes. So my main option is yet another move discussion, this time for moving Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (TV series) to Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, per WP:PTOPIC and WP:TWODABS. The alternative is to just move the article anyway, and see if it's disputed, and then hold another discussion. Any thoughts? BilCat (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

To BilCat: you could try just moving it; however, with all the ongoing controversy and the perhaps small possibility of an AfD hanging over the article, it might still be best to open an RM to move the series article to the base name. I just placed a pointer on the dab's talk page to the 12 Sept. RM so editors can find that one. Best to you! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. There's been no objection to the article's move to mainspace yet, but it could still happen. I'll probably give it a few days and reevaluate then. BilCat (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Now Star Trek: Strange New Worlds been redirected to another DAB page. I may just have to do an RM after all. - BilCat (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
To BilCat: right there with you! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 19:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
To BilCat: the more I think about it, the more it seems that the move to the base name was strongly supported in your most recent move request. So I see a new RM to be redundant, and I have moved the article to the base name. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree, but as the proposer, I felt it would be inappropriate of me to move it or even ask someone else to do it. BilCat (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Now where's the fun in that? ;>) P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 04:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Sometimes you have to pick your own fun! :) BilCat (talk) 04:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Don't wanna get all mushy on ya, and yet I truly admire your concept of "inappropriate of me to move it or even ask someone else to do it"! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 05:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm still feeling my way around what being "uninvolved" means. I don't close many RMs as it would be too close to "supervoting" in most cases! I do stick my neck out on occasion though, per BOLD. BilCat (talk) 05:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
You still having "fun"? ;) BilCat (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I usually try to oblige those who come to my talk page with reversal wishes. In the case of moving the dab title to the base name, that was by overwhelming consensus, and while adhering to consensus isn't always fun, it's always the right thing to do. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 19:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I understand. BilCat (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds[edit]

The move of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (TV series) to Star Trek: Strange New Worlds does not have consensus in the RM you linked in your move summary. And in fact people mentioned that we should indeed keep both disambiguated. First, primary swaps instantly break both internal and external incoming links. Second, this series does not conform to WP:TVSERIES for notability/inclusion because there is not announced broadcast date (in fact, its not even in production yet). Please revert this un(der)discussed move. -- Netoholic @ 11:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Obviously, we disagree. I look at the most recent RM at Talk:Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (short story collection)#Requested move 12 September 2020 and I see almost a SNOW consensus to rename both entries. The move made by the closer was only half of what the consensus wanted in that RM. We see only one editor, Alex 21, who out of all those supporters wanted the disambiguated title. Only one. None of the other supporters even mentioned it except to indicate their support for the proposal as requested. I don't see any broken links because the unnecessarily disambiguated title redirects to the base name. Whether or not this series conforms to a guideline supplement that has not been thoroughly vetted by the community has already been discussed and supporters in that RM did not appear to agree as to its importance. I'm sorry if you think it should be reversed, but you are so far just one voice in the wilderness, and we've all been there. There were no other editors in that RM who held the guideline supplement up higher than WP:GNG. You were the only one. We should go with the consensus on this one, Netoholic. If consensus changes, then I would be happy to oblige. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 19:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
After reading the ensuing discussions after the page move, and being mentioned above, I can see the support for the television series being the primary topic, so I've come to support it not requiring disambiguation. Makes sense to me. Cheers. -- /Alex/21 05:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much, /Alex/21! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 06:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Closing advice[edit]

Hi Paine, I've been watching Talk:FFG(X)#Requested move 9 October 2020 for a few days, trying to decide how I would close it, or even if I should. Any thoughts? BilCat (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

That one could use some more time to see if a consensus can emerge. I would relist it and leave a notification of the RM at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. That Wikiproject does not appear to have automatic notification of page move discussions. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 18:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
How do I relist it? I've not done that before. BilCat (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
The one I use is {{subst:Relisting|}}. That automatically signs for you, so don't leave a sig. Place one space after the original nom's/requestor's sig, then type or paste the Relisting template. That will move the RM in the log back to today's date and give it seven more days. See WP:RELIST and WP:RMCI#Relisting for more details. And remember to leave a brief notification on the WikiProject's talk page to maybe help with the consensus. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 21:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thanks very much. BilCat (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Pleasure!  Paine  21:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I tried adding a notification tag to WT:SHIPS, but messed it uo.somehow. Also, can you double-check the RM discussion to see if it relisted? I tried following all the instructions on the RM page and template, but I may have messed up. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
That was all good! I fixed the link on the WikiProject's talk page, no big deal, and as you can see at this link, the RM has been relisted. Thank you for all your help with RMs! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 05:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
And thanks also. BilCat (talk) 05:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
To BilCat: just a gentle reminder that after you or another closer has relisted a move request, if and when a consensus does emerge, the request can be closed at any time. As a rule you don't have to wait another full seven days if involved editors come to consensus. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 16:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I finally decided that I couldn't remain neutral in a close with all of the issues I felt needed to be addressed, and would end up supervoting. Since Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions allows a relister to subsequently participate, that's what I've done. Thanks again. BilCat (talk) 05:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Several more users have contributed to the discussion since I relisted it. Could you possibly look and see if you could close it? I think our discussion here has been neutral enough that you're still not involved, but if you decide you can't or don't want to close this, for whatever reason, I understand. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Ping! BilCat (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
No worries, it's just been closed. BilCat (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Template edit request consensus[edit]

Hello, I was just looking for someone to ask this when I noticed you completed my edit request so, I was wondering if you can request template edits on a consensus based on WP:SILENT for small changes?. This applies mostly to my proposal at {{Graphic novel list}}, thanks. Terasail II[Talk] 01:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Good question Terasail, and thank you for coming to my talk page! The answer to your question lies both with you, the editor who wants to make the change, and with the editor who answers your edit request. For those instances where you are unclear whether or not other editors should have a say and WP:SILENT might or might not apply, I would suggest you make the edit request to see if the answering editor agrees or thinks a more thorough consensus is needed. So the answer to your question would be "yes". I see no reason why most small changes would require more than a consensus based on WP:SILENT. Exceptions to that would include those templates that have a large number of transclusions. Using Jarry1250's transclusion count page we see that {{Graphic novel list}} is transcluded less than 2000 times. When it surpasses 2000 usages, it will qualify as a {{high-use}} template, so it's very close to that. So some small changes might be deemed important enough to involve other editors in the decision. Again, if you aren't sure for any particular template or module, I would just make the edit request and see if it flies. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 02:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Some baklava for you![edit]

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG While I don't personally agree with how things landed on the discussion regarding moving Ennis Del Mar, I appreciate that you gave a measured and thoughtful response in your closing comment. I don't imagine such things are especially easy, and you deserve recognition for the cogent way you laid out your thoughts on the subject. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Doniago! That is a very unusual case where the common name policy was invoked due to prevalence of the capitalized "Del" in reliable sources. I wonder what would happen if editors would get behind the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC idea of long-term significance, and that being held by the book usage of the name? Might be a first step for strengthening the supporting arguments. But then, I could be wrong. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 03:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
PS. I love baklava! PS left by P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 03:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Glad I found an agreeable snack for you!
I don't have enough of a horse in the race to pursue it significantly further; not over whether to capitalize a single letter, though I would love a source that discussed why the capitalization, of all things, was changed for the film. I just find it concerning that we seem to have a process where enough secondary sources on the spelling of a name can override a primary source. I concede that the film might be the more likely target for readers, but without the book the film wouldn't exist. Unfortunately, perhaps because of the lateness of the hour, I can't immediately come up with an analogous case of a character's name being changed for a film that ultimately became clearly more well-known than the book, which might serve as a precedent.
Would you mind if I asked what your feelings would be if the lead of the article included a parenthetical or perhaps a footnote noting that the novel uses a different capitalization? I feel that might be a reasonable compromise between the two sides. If that's objectionable then, as I said, I'm not invested enough to keep pushing at this one.
Thanks again! DonIago (talk) 05:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
As I did the post-closure copy editing, I came thiiiiis close )( to including a note about the lowercase spelling in the written work. Then I thought that if editors wanted that, it would have probably already been added. Perhaps lower down in the article somewhere would be more appropriate? I'm not really invested enough to know where exactly, though. I do think it's needed, if only for those readers who have read the story and perhaps wondered at the change. Most readers probably don't give it a second thought even if they do give it a first thought. If it would calm the restlessness, then it might yet be a good idea and an improvement for the article to say something about the case change from "del" to "Del", especially if a reliable source is found with the story behind the change. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 09:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I think the odds of finding a source discussing the change are...not great. :p It's possible that a note's never been added simply because it never occurred to anyone to do so, or because people simply weren't aware of the variance. I don't have enough of my wits about me to do anything further with it right now, but I may broach the question at the Talk page...unless you feel it's a good enough idea that I should be bold and just add the note and see whether anyone objects! DonIago (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
To DonIago: still not sure where in the article the note about the written spelling "del Mar" vs. the film's "Del Mar" should go nor how it should be phrased. If you know a way, then I would suggest doing the bold thing and BRD too if necessary. IMHO, it can only be a help for some readers. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 11:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Footnoted; I'll mention it on the Talk page as well. DonIago (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Archives template[edit]

The {{archives}} template has a lot of edgecases and parameters.. too many for me. I think I will just stick to changing less complicated templates from now on.. Ha Terasail[Talk] 12:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

That template loop was a real head scratcher! It was a good learning experience, tho, so we don't want to let it go to waste. You're doing just fine, Terasail, just fine. Now I'm curious as to why the same code on the live page displays differently on the sandbox page? On the live page I see a blue Index link and two blue archive links below it, but on the sandbox page I see just one red archive link. Curiouser and curiouser! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 13:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
On the template pages, it shows blue links on the main template since there are dummy pages created, I assume to show an example of how it should look... But the sandbox page can't see them because it would need the |root=Template:Archives I think in order to see those pages.. I think but am not entirely sure.. Terasail[Talk] 13:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see that now... on this special page. They don't appear on the raw doc page either, but only on the main template page itself. That can be confusing, but I guess it's good to show what they look like on the main template page. I'm tempted to create dummy archive pages for the /doc and /sandbox, but no, that would be overkill, I think. Best to leave things as they are. It's the /testcases page that may need them most. Let me think about it. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 13:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Red Kitten 01.jpg

Thanks for helping out at {{Old peer review}}. Much appreciated :).

Tom (LT) (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Tom (LT), I actually love kittens! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 15:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Peer review templates[edit]

Hi Paine Ellsworth. Thanks for your help with Template:Old peer review. Hope my gift of a kitten above is not too much of a burden and that you're not allergic :). Would you mind if I contacted you in the future if I'm tinkering with other peer review templates and need some help? Occasionally the code is exceedingly complex and would benefit from a second set of eyes, and I really appreciated your collegiate and constructive editing style :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Always a pleasure to be of help, Tom (LT)! Contact me anytime, and I'll do what I can. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 16:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2020[edit]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Talk header italics[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Talk header italics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Paine. Any comments you'd like to add to the above re. its proposed deletion? Alternatively, would you prefer it be userfied? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi PR. No, I'm good. That was an experiment off of a failed proposal. Nobody seemed to like the idea of italicizing appropriate titles of talk pages, let alone doing it automatically with the Talk header template. It was fun at the time, and I learned a lot about editing templates, but I've moved on. Thank you very much for coming to my talk page with it, though! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 10:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Move review for Rise of the Evangelical Church in Latin America[edit]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Rise of the Evangelical Church in Latin 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. Dereck Camacho (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Technical edit request[edit]

Hi. A deprecated source by RussiaToday was removed and a statement by Morsi is currently unsourced. Could you add this source and remove the "citation needed" tag for Mohammed Morsi's statement?: [1]

Thanks--Watchlonly (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

To Watchlonly: yes, it has been added, and thank you for your improvement of that article! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 12:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


Edit request on History of Israel[edit]

Hello Paine Ellsworth. Could you please answer my edit request? I've noticed you added the ref-talk there, but nobody else incorporated the information I wrote to the article itself. The text is non-controversial, historically significant and it's backed up by a good source. I hope I'm not bothering you in case you disagree with my content. Thank you very much.--Hachan Base (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

To Hachan Base: please be more specific. Your request says "next to", but that could be "before" or "after" the sentence. So do you want that text inserted before or after "many synagogues have been found dating from this period,"? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 02:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
AFTER the sentence. Section would look like this:
Extended content

After the 136 CE Jewish defeat[edit]

After suppressing the Bar Kochba revolt, the Romans exiled the Jews of Judea, but not those of Galilee. The Romans permitted a hereditary Rabbinical Patriarch (from the House of Hillel, based in Galilee), called the "Nasi" to represent the Jews in dealings with the Romans. The most famous of these was Judah haNasi, who is credited with compiling the final version of the Mishnah (a massive body of Jewish religious texts interpreting the Bible) and with strengthening the educational demands of Judaism by requiring that illiterate Jews be treated as outcasts. As a result, many illiterate Jews may have converted to Christianity.[1] Jewish seminaries, such as those at Shefaram and Bet Shearim, continued to produce scholars. The best of these became members of the Sanhedrin,[2] which was located first at Sepphoris and later at Tiberias.[3] Before the Bar Kochba uprising, an estimated 2/3 of the population of Galilee and 1/3 of the coastal region were Jewish.[4]

In the Galillee, many synagogues have been found dating from this period.[5] However, persecution and the economic crisis that affected the Roman empire in the 3rd century led to further Jewish migration from Syria Palaestina to the more tolerant Persian Sassanid Empire, where a prosperous Jewish community with extensive seminaries existed in the area of Babylon.[6] The burial site of the Sanhedrin leaders was discovered in 1936.[7][8]

To Hachan Base: not for anything, and maybe it's just me, but that does not seem to flow correctly. I was actually thinking about something like the following:

In the Galillee, many synagogues have been found dating from this period,[9] and the burial site of the Sanhedrin leaders was discovered in 1936.[10][11] However, persecution and the economic crisis that affected the Roman empire in the 3rd century led to further Jewish migration from Syria Palaestina to the more tolerant Persian Sassanid Empire, where a prosperous Jewish community with extensive seminaries existed in the area of Babylon.[12]

To Hachan Base: so it seems that the idea in the last sentence of the original paragraph should be more closely attached to the idea in the "In the Galillee..." sentence. And then your proposed addition can come after that and be at the end of the paragraph. Doesn't that seem better to you? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 05:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ The Chosen Few: How education shaped Jewish History, Botticini and Eckstein, Princeton 2012, page 116
  2. ^ M. Avi-Yonah, The Jews under Roman and Byzantine Rule, Jerusalem 1984 sections II to V
  3. ^ Vailhé Siméon, "Diocaesarea" in The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 7 November 2013.
  4. ^ M. Avi-Yonah, The Jews under Roman and Byzantine Rule, Jerusalem 1984 chapter I
  5. ^ Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee: An Archaeological Survey of the Eastern Galilee in Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, Author: James Charlesworth, Volume 8, issue 3 2010 pp 281 -284
  6. ^ Cherry, Robert: Jewish and Christian Views on Bodily Pleasure: Their Origins and Relevance in the Twentieth-Century, p. 148 (2018), Wipf and Stock Publishers
  7. ^ "Necropolis of Bet She'arim: A Landmark of Jewish Renewal".
  8. ^ History of the Jews, Volume II by Simon Dubnow (Barnes 1968), chapter 4 the Patriarchate in the Galillee (pages 96 - 117)
  9. ^ Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee: An Archaeological Survey of the Eastern Galilee in Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, Author: James Charlesworth, Volume 8, issue 3 2010 pp 281 -284
  10. ^ "Necropolis of Bet She'arim: A Landmark of Jewish Renewal".
  11. ^ History of the Jews, Volume II by Simon Dubnow (Barnes 1968), chapter 4 the Patriarchate in the Galillee (pages 96 - 117)
  12. ^ Cherry, Robert: Jewish and Christian Views on Bodily Pleasure: Their Origins and Relevance in the Twentieth-Century, p. 148 (2018), Wipf and Stock Publishers

Yes. Please do that. Your version is even better. Hachan Base (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, and it's done. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 06:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda, and thanks also for being so patient with me! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 09:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I once said "the one thing I learned here is patience" but am not aware of having needed it regarding you ;) - Operas: I wanted infoboxes, not side navboxes, and look at this only seven years later ;) - I will not vote for arb candidates who think that was a success of arbcom, - just common sense prevailed (but when you speak up for that sense you show battleground behaviour and need to be restricted, according to some arbs back then) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
By comparison, we see the one editor in the RM who suggested withdrawal. That editor used the same type of adjective in their previous rationale, called it a "selective list". And that editor was the first to firmly oppose "select operas" and the only one to suggest it "wastes the community's time". I seldom open RMs, and when I do open one I truly believe in its rightness. I was wrong this time, however, and your patience is and was appreciated! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 13:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)