Jump to content

User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Take care

I'm sorry to see you go, and I wish you the best in whatever you do. I will miss seeing you around. You've been a great help to me along the way. I hope you may be able to return some day. If you need anything, feel free to shoot me an email. BilCat (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, BilCat! Don't know about returning, man; it's been a really bad month for personal interactions. Happiest of holiday seasons to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 09:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
You're most welcome, and same to you and yours. I certainly understand if you never feel like returning. I've retired from Wikipedia at least three times, with no intention of returning. But I eventually did each time. Part of it depends on if one is able to find a hobby as fulfilling (or addictive) as Wikipedia, and I never did. I totally understand either way. In my 15 years on Wikipedia, I've seen many very good editors leave because of bad personal experiences, and most never returned. Perhaps someday the Foundation will put as much effort into retention of its experienced users as it does new user recruitment, but I doubt it ever will. BilCat (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Keep well

Dear colleague,
I've just seen the above banner and wanted to send you my best wishes. It's good to take an indefinite break sometimes, and go and do something entirely different for a while. Perhaps one day you'll remember all the good things that can happen here, especially the joyful sense of a job well done when some task or other has been completed. I hope you'll have that pleasure again before too long and, until then, please keep well and know that you'll be most welcome if/when you decide to return.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 10:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Pdebee, for your kind words! Best of holiday wishes to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 20:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Didn't see until now -- also sending my best wishes to you. I appreciate all the work you've done around here and hope you'll be back at some point. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Elli! You are such a hard-working editor and so helpful to those who ask for edits they can't make themselves! Honestly don't know if I'll be coming back; there is still quite an attraction for me. However when it stops being fun, then I see no personal benefit to it. Sometimes editors can make it so unattractive to try to improve this great reference work. Not talking about you, now; you have always been wise and even enlightening for me. May you and yours enjoy the happiest of holiday seasons! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 18:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Walking on eggshells

Hi Paine. I'm posting here to point out something at the risk of my post being perceived as another "personal attack", but I don't think it's a healthy editing environment to have editors afraid to point out other's mistakes.

I patrol for pages transcluding errors and endeavor to keep that "what links here" list as short as possible. Today I just noticed many new pages populating that list, such as &quot. I also observe that this isn't entirely an issue that you created as someone else recently created Template:R from HTML entity but I also see that Template:R from HTML entity/sandbox hasn't yet been created. If you want to come back to fix this, that's fine with me, otherwise I'll have to revert your recent changes to that template. Thanks, and sorry to put another damper on your fun. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't just your edit summary, wbm1058, which btw thank you for your later kind words, it's just been a bad month generally for me in regard to personal interactions. Yours was just the straw that broke the camel's back. On this issue, I was trying to get the category to sort to the second figure (after the "&") but I've forgotten how to do that evidently, so yes, feel free to revert as it does not make a lot of difference since there are still only a few in the category.
In regard to your latest revert over at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), not sure why you did that because my edits there corrected a common problem as described at H:DL, as I noted in my edit summary. You might want to rethink that one because it renders invalid HTML5 and creates issues with screen readers. Anyway, please ease your mind where I'm concerned. I've always looked up to you and still do, so have a happy holiday season, you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 18:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
That revert was accidental as I explained in my edit summary when I self-reverted within a minute later. After that I got out the mouse I use with my laptop. wbm1058 (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I must have signed in just after you reverted me and just before you self-reverted. Okay, I went ahead and self-reverted at {{R from HTML entity}}, so the "pages transcluding errors" should be improved. Thank you so much! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 22:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

"Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 2#Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ― Tartan357 Talk 05:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

removed A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

  • Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
  • The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lists of angels (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Lists of angels (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
  • disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
  • is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost interview

Birds are not dinosaurs

Just in case anybody's interested in my humble opinion, I don't think birds are dinosaurs any more than I think humans are the little mammals that ran beneath the feet of dinosaurs. It was compelling and satisfactory to find out that all birds had evolved from certain types of dinosaurs. Yet dinosaurs are extinct, so please let them sleep. Birds are not dinosaurs any more than you and I are monkeys! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 04:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Do feel free to disagree... P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 00:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I neither agree nor disagree, because the meaning of words like "dinosaur", "reptile", "monkey", "ape", "fish", and the like, that are now known to refer to non-monophyletic groups of organisms, is context-dependent. In ordinary language (OL) contexts, they have perfectly clear and well understood applications, based on morphology, and the phylogeny of the groups is irrelevant. In scientific language (SL) contexts, there can be a need for an ordinary language term to use to refer to the monophyletic group. So birds are not dinosaursOL, but they are dinosaursSL. Sadly, the context-dependent nature of natural language seems to be something that those who endlessly edit-war at articles like Ape refuse to accept. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that Peter! Not being a scientist I would have to ask then: if "birds are not dinosaursOL, but they are dinosaursSL", does this also mean that humans are not the little mammals that scurried under the feet of dinosaursOL, but they are the little mammals that scurried under the feet of dinosaursSL? I suppose I don't understand the language of scientists who would equate all the many species of modern birds with extinct dinosaurs any more than I understand how human beings could be equated with those scurrying little mammals of 70 million years ago. And does the language of science then equate all living things with LUCA? P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 19:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, we are descended from those mammals. There is a common ancestor of all monkeys. All humans are descended from ancestor, too. Therefore, humans are a type of monkey. Same with birds. There is a common ancestor of all dinosaurs. All birds are descended from that ancestor. Therefore, birds are a type of dinosaur.
Language may be confusing things here. If someone said "There is a common ancestor of all mammals. All humans are descended from that ancestor. Therefore, humans are a type mammal." I don't think you'd object, because well, humans are a type of mammal.
If you want to make a grouping of animals that includes what we generally consider monkeys, but not humans, you can do it, but it doesn't have a strong scientific basis. Same with dinosaurs and birds. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
To editor Elli: thank you very much for your response. It's not easy to understand how the sci lang is more precise and better understood by scientists, so I can see why there might be many disputes about such things as Peter pointed out. Since I have the "luxury" of not being a thorough-thinking scientist, I have to continue not accepting that birds are dinos. Birds evolved from them, but they are birds, and just like some human ancestors are extinct, so too are the progenitors of birds. May they rest in peace. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 03:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Reasonable. Your definition of "dinosaur" doesn't have to include birds -- it just means you don't consider dinosaurs to be a phylogenetic grouping. Indeed, most non-scientists probably share a similar opinion, and depending on context it probably is more useful. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Your "mammal" line of thought did help, though. Even though it describes a "class" of vertebrates, I think of it as a widely encompassing term, much like "reptile". Marsupials are a specialty type of mammal, dinos are a specialty type of reptile. Then there are the birds, which are neither mammalian nor reptilian. Birds are too different from them to be classed as either, and I can see where some have become very fascinated by them and have studied them so closely. There's really nothing else like them in our present world. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 03:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Yep. Reptiles are not a phylogenetic group either, since it includes dinosaurs but not birds (and for that matter, since it doesn't include mammals), but that doesn't mean it isn't useful. Reptile § Phylogenetics and modern definition has some good info on this. And yes, birds are absolutely fascinating. I'm only sad that I no longer live in the age of the passenger pigeon, sigh... Elli (talk | contribs) 03:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Became more interested in birds while reading Ardrey's books like The Social Contract and African Genesis, one of the first writings that described humans originating in Africa and spreading out from there. There were stories about Konrad Lorenz, who studied Jackdaws extensively; some great tales there! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 04:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make a grouping of animals that includes what we generally consider monkeys, but not humans, you can do it, but it doesn't have a strong scientific basis. Well, the great majority of biologists (but definitely not all) do indeed currently take the view that classifications should only involve monophyletic groups, i.e. clades. They didn't always take this view, and a few resisters continue to argue against it. But it is a choice – a consensus choice, certainly, but still a choice. Classification should reflect objective facts about organisms, but always has a subjective element in deciding which objective facts count as criteria to be used in dividing up organisms into groups (taxa). Evolutionary history (phylogeny) is currently considered more important than morphology or way of life. Will this always be the case? Who knows. There are fashions in biology as in all human activities. So I would prefer to say if you want to make a grouping of animals that includes what we generally consider monkeys, but not humans, you can do it, but it doesn't have a strong basis in the current consensus on how to construct scientific classifications. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Are birds and dinosaurs and humans and monkeys all fish,then? Hyperbolick (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
@Hyperbolick: that's the problem with trying to use vernacular terms for phylogenetically defined taxa. There's a clade that has been called Osteichthyes that includes tetrapods, and so birds and dinosaurs and humans and monkeys (see e.g. the cladogram at Osteichthyes#Phylogeny). So it's correct to say that birds and dinosaurs and humans and monkeys, in both the ordinary language and the scientific language senses of these terms, belong to the Osteichthyes. If you decide use "bony fishes" to mean the clade (C) rather than the paraphyletic group (PG), then birds and dinosaurs and humans and monkeys are bony fishesC although not bony fishesPG or bony fishesOL. Without the subscripts or equivalent prior definitions, the question isn't sufficiently clear to be answered. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Peter, if you aren't writing books, you should be. You seem to have a good handle on OL vs. SL etc. Reminds me of the prolific Asimov, who was able to explain science in OL terms. His only flaw was that he had a PhD in chemistry, so his chem. descriptions seemed more SL than OL; however, when he wrote about astronomy, physics and other sciences, he was much better at using OL and was much more understandable. So if a scientist has a good handle on using OL to describe science, they would make a good writer. Have you given any thought to writing about science subjects? P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 02:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Fair point on phrasing. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

RFA 2021 Completed

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

  1. Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
  2. A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
  3. Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

  1. An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
  2. An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Closing Move Review Without Consensus

Hello Paine,

I was wondering why you closed the discussion on South African name changes when admins in the discussion advised to keep it open. There was no consensus reached and I was explicitly told by other admin to post that there. It's extremely frustrating to follow the rules and still get told I'm breaking them. Why was that discussion inappropriate? Do you disagree with the other admins? Unless I am misreading it, you did not even tell me where I should go. I haev posted on the Project page. This is where I was told to go. Where do I go now? Where do I post it? I have exhausted literally almost every other avenue. If you're going to close the page and tell me to leave, please tell me where I should post this or where I should go. Again, it seems like this decision contradicts what other admins were saying in the discussion thread. Desertambition (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello Desert,
I do sense your frustration and am not immune to it. Move review exists to examine the closures of specific move requests. Move review is not the correct venue for the type of discussion you opened there. If you will be kind enough to reread my closure of the discussion, you will see that I specified three venues for that type of discussion. They are:
  1. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa
  2. Wikipedia:South Africa Wikipedians' notice board
  3. Wikipedia:South African wikipedians' notice board
The numbers above represent the order in which that discussion should be opened, that is, first at the WikiProject talk page, then, if necessary, at the South Africa notice board and then, if necessary, at the South African notice board. Those should be opened one-at-a-time, and a new one should only be opened if a previous one is either closed or goes unattended. I did not see this page-title issue discussed yet at any of those pages. If I missed a discussion, then please forgive me and point it out specifically, so I can go to it and perhaps express an opinion. Thank you for your continued patience. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 05:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm glad you're willing to hear me out but I have posted almost an entire page about this in WikiProject South Africa Politics Taskforce with no real discussion or consensus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_South_Africa/Politics_task_force#Renaming_Towns_and_Cities_on_Wikipedia

It's been there for over a month and I was specifically told by other admin to post my request there. What you're telling me is directly contradictory to what other admin have told me. It seems completely pointless to keep going through the exact same arguments again and again without any consensus. It makes absolutely no sense. It's clear that the SA Project is fairly inactive, or at least not engaging with my topic. There was clear engagement on the move review and progress was being made. Again, it directly contradicted other admins directions and advice. Desertambition (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that discussion which seemed to go nowhere. The politics task force is probably too small a venue for the discussion of city page titles. I think the main WikiProject talk page is still the best place to open a general discussion about article page titles. Truly, the only other "best places" are the talk pages of the individual cities where you can open move requests for each one. It might take some time, but if you're willing to do the work and get the job done, then persistency is your best friend! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 05:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Unclear request?

Just, very curious. Already ten days, I have a {{Chembox}} edit request at Category:Wikipedia template-protected edit requests (6). I see multiple requests were answered (about two a day), except this one. Since you are a regular, could you clarify a cause for this wait? Something unclear with my ER (but nobody asked...)? -DePiep (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

To tell the truth, editor DePiep, there are some requests that I bypass for various reasons. In the case of the Chembox request, it seemed a bit too involved, and I haven't had the time to get into it. Also, chemistry is not my strongest subject, although I do usually trust your edits. I still like to try to understand them as much as I can. So I'll see if I can make some time soon. Right now I need some sleep. Thank you for coming to my talk page, and Happiest of New Years to You and Yours! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 12:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Hope someone will pick it up soon, also because other, next step changes are waiting. Have a nice 21/22 Year Edit. -DePiep (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Reopening Move Request on Port Elizabeth -> Gqeberha

Hello Paine Ellsworth,

I was wondering if you would be interested in reopening the move discussion on Port Elizabeth for comment given your recent support for King William's Town. A full consensus was never reached and I believe a more thorough review of sources and arguments shows that the incorrect decision was reached. In addition, Sotherby, one of the users in opposition, was revealed to be a sockpuppet account. Desertambition (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

"Gqeberha" has seen continued use by reliable sources since the discussion was closed.

Unidentified man dies after falling off a building in Gqeberha

Archbishop Tutu’s memorial service under way in Gqeberha

MAN'S BODY FOUND ON R75 IN GQEBERHA

All from different reliable sources. All from the very first three results. Not at all hard to find or obscure. Desertambition (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

To editor Desertambition: it's good that you continue wanting to rename these cities. It probably would not do any good to reopen a move request that had a consensus. In the case of Gqeberha, the consensus was not to move at that time. It's only been a few months, and the longer the wait before trying again, the more likely you will succeed. I would suggest you continue gathering good, reliable, independent, secondary sources; the more you have, the stronger your argument becomes. A good tool to use is the {{Find sources}} template. So strengthen your arguments and be patient. Suggest you wait at least 8 or 9 months before you try again to rename the Port Elizabeth article to Gqeberha. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 10:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
To editor Paine Ellsworth: I am hearing what you're saying but that doesn't really address why my arguments are weak. How is this situation different than King William's Town? You also did not address the sockpuppet account. I am also alleging Park3r and Suffy69 are biased in their opposition.
Park3r for this statement:
"The reality is that South Africans of all backgrounds don’t often embrace renamings, perhaps because they are done after perfunctory consultations, and because the South Africa is increasingly anarchic and few people subscribe to government directions."
Which is transparently untrue and gives strong indication of WP:BIAS.
Suffy69 created the transparently biased article on Cape Independence.
Toddy1 argued that we shouldn't change it because it was not the common name in Britain. They did not expand on why that was relevant.
The C of E cherrypicked sources and did not elaborate when called out.
After taking that into consideration, I counted seven in support and seven in opposition. Important to note that many in opposition did not elaborate and I have never heard of manuals of style being used to determine place names. I believe I made a mistake in the way I brought up bias in the discussion and it derailed the talks. This certainly deserves another look, especially given the continued use in reliable sources. Desertambition (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
To editor Desertambition: that doesn't really address why my arguments are weak
Don't think your rationale is weak. Some editors think your args are quite strong, just not strong enough to overcome consensus yet. The more reliable sources you can muster, the harder it will be for editors to disagree with you.
You also did not address the sockpuppet account.
At the time of closing that move request, I was unaware of the SP charges; however, one editor's opinion expressed twice (if that is what happened) rarely makes a difference in the outcome. At most, the decision would be changed from "not moved" to "no consensus", and the title still would have not changed.
biased in their opposition
Charges of bias should only be made on Wikipedia when there is overwhelming evidence, so please be careful how you address the comments of other editors. Some will take you to WP:ANI or worse. It's important to remember to assume good faith in all discussions.
I counted seven in support and seven in opposition.
Gentle reminder that the outcome is not just determined by the number of !votes, and even if there were 7:7, that probably would not have been a consensus to rename the article.
I have never heard of manuals of style being used to determine place names.
When it comes to titles, the Manual of Style mainly helps with titling formats, but not with place-name changes.
I brought up bias in the discussion and it derailed the talks. This certainly deserves another look, especially given the continued use in reliable sources.
The important thing is to learn from your mistakes. It's okay to make mistakes, just don't make the same mistake twice. Yes, this certainly does deserve another look, but not right now. My suggestion would be for you to choose a similar rename of one of the other cities, and start a requested move to garner consensus for an article renaming. Come back to Gqeberha later. And the more solid, reliable sources you can point to, the better! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 02:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Move Request on King William's Town

It has been over a week since the move request on King William's Town was opened. Has there been sufficient evidence/consensus to move the article to Qonce? Desertambition (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

To editor Desertambition: at this point that discussion might be a tough call for a closer. We'll just have to wait and see. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 04:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

"Cleanup templates" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cleanup templates and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 12#Cleanup templates until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Thryduulf, for this notice, and btw Happy New Year to You and Yours! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 11:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
You're very welcome, happy new year to you as well! Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:This is a redirect/code

Template:This is a redirect/code has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Gonnym, for this notification! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 20:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

TemplatesNeedingFairUseFixing

Ref: User:Whpq/TemplatesNeedingFairUseFixing Hi,

Thank you for carrying on making changes. I apologize for not responding sooner. I've been very busy in real life and not had a chance to work on this, and will likely only be able to sporadically check in over the next few days. The change to Template:Non-free logo is something that likely applies to every single template in Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright templates as the ones I've looked at all have the same or similar text about rationales. If you could work through that category to apply the change, that would be tremendous. I also see that the changes are marked as pending approval. What sort of approval is needed for these changes? Thanks again. -- Whpq (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

To editor Whpq: the sort of approval looked for is your approval. I'm not a fair-use/non-free use expert, so I might make mistakes. I sometimes get busy in RL so I understand that there is no deadline and you're doing perfectly well to identify the needs for improvement in these cases. It's my pleasure to help! I'll work on that category when I can. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 21:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, in that case, approved! The changes you made are fine. Cheers. -- Whpq (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Update - I have been able to get back to working on this a little bit. I am working my way through the list. Not all templates have a protection level requiring a template editor. Those which I can modify (and confidently be sure I'm not screwing things up) I have changed myself and marked as done. Those which require changes to be made by a template editor have been marked as with {{ToDo}} ( ToDo ). When you have time, please review those marked for ToDo. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

To editor Whpq: acknowledged – getting busier offline; will work on it. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 08:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
No worries. I think we both understand well that real life intrudes. Cheers. -- Whpq (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:R to subpage/doc support

Template:R to subpage/doc support has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Premature closing of the discussion and undiscussed renaming of the Freedom Convoy 2022 page

Dear Paine Ellsworth, I noticed that you recently closed a discussion on the Freedom Convoy 2022 talk page whose object was to discuss whether or not the page should be moved to a new name. At the time of closing, there were 17 editors supporting a name change (though they did not all agree with the proposed name change) and 35 editors opposed to changing the name (either because they objected to the proposed name, or because they thought the name shouldn't be changed, roughly half and half with a slight bias towards the latter). Many of the editors who were opposed to the name change, and some who supported some name change, wanted a new discussion to be had on what the name should be changed to before it was changed, if indeed a consensus could be reached that the name should changed (some number had already moved to do so). You, however, went ahead and changed the name, despite the fact that a super-majority opposed changing the name.

I would request that you revert your move of the article and wait until there is actually a consensus on 1) whether to change the name at all and 2) what to change the name to.

Sorry to have to introduce myself through such a polemical issue. Nice to make your digital acquaintance. Yours, Joe (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here, Joe! We seem to disagree on the numbers, possibly because I did an in-depth analysis that included the 17 supporters with just 7 that were staunch supporters and 10 who actually favored one or more names that were different from the proposed title. We differ on the number of opposers, possibly because of the way some of them worded their rationales. My rechecked count is still 31 who opposed, and yet there were only 10 who strongly opposed renaming the page. All the other opposers either suggested different titles, agreed with different titles that had already been mentioned, or they expressed a dislike of the proposed title but were uncertain about what new title to use. So there were 7 editors who strongly supported the page move and 10 editors who, like yourself, were just as strongly opposed to the page move. There were 48 editors involved, so if we put the 21 opposers who suggested other names with the 17 supporters, that is a definite consensus to discard the old title. Since there were 19 different titles proposed and more than 30 editors who either proposed new titles or supported them, this was a clear case of WP:OTHEROPTIONS. So I chose what I thought to be a title that was in accord with our article title policy.
I understand your concerns and I do thank you for being civil, more than civil, about all this. Truly, if you disagree with my choice of titles, I sincerely hope you will follow OTHER OPTIONS and just open a new move request to a different title of your choice. There was a strong consensus against the old title, so any attempt to restore it would probably not succeed. But the article needs a stable title so that our readers are satisfied and helped. If the title I chose is not the stable one then so be it, and I hope we find a good, stable title very soon. Thanks again for your kind words and for coming to my talk page! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 00:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I came here to comment on the same thing: I don't think there was a consensus. Agreeing to move the page somewhere does not equal to agreeing to move the page to the proposed title, and a majority of people opposed the new title (proposing a new title does not equal supporting the new title or preferring the new title to the previous one). The user Ivanvector also commented on this [a new section on the title change]. The page should be moved back until a proper consensus, or at least a majority, is reached. If not, a WP:MR ought be requested. --CasuarioAlmeriense (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, CasuarioAlmeriense, for coming to my talk page! You are correct that there was no consensus to move the article to the proposed title or any title really. Among the 48 editors who either supported, opposed or commented, 17 supported a page move to somewhere else besides the previous title, and of the 31 opposers, 21 had their own ideas about where else the page could be moved. 21 plus 17 is 38 out of 48 editors who were unhappy with the previous title. On Wikipedia that is a clear consensus. WP:OTHEROPTIONS was followed closely as was the title policy. Please try to understand that I must stand by my decision, and I hope that either 1) my choice of title becomes the good, stable title of the article, or 2) a new move request is opened that leads the article to a different title that becomes good and stable. Thanks again for coming! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 22:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Move review for Ottawa convoy protest

An editor has asked for a Move review of Ottawa convoy protest. 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.

Since this is an important and controversial topic, the new title does not follow WP:COMMONNAME and most comments were against it, I asked for a move review to reach a proper consensus; I hope that, even if you do not agree, at least understand my reasoning. I appreciate your civility above and hope to discuss this in a good-spirited, thoughtful way. Sincerely, CasuarioAlmeriense (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Indo-Aryan languages/doc

Template:Indo-Aryan languages/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Old and Middle Indo-Aryan/doc

Template:Old and Middle Indo-Aryan/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine

It may be of interest that WP had it right 20 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukraine&oldid=200071

—В²C ☎ 22:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

To editor В²C: and here is how that article was begun a year before that. I was 51 and had been calling it "The Ukraine" for nearly half a century. Seems "getting it right" is always subject to change. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 22:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I get that. Me too. But when did we stop adding the “the”? My point is 20 years after WP got it, we’re still talking about it. I think it was only a couple of years ago for me. —В²C ☎ 15:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
To editor В²C: "Ukraine" (no "the") has been official since their independence in 1991 (when the USSR was no more). Both "the Ukraine" and "The Ukraine" remained in slowly decreasing usage until 2012 (see https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18233844), when the Ukrainian embassy in London further clarified that it is politically and grammatically incorrect to use "the" or "The" with "Ukraine". Use of the article dropped dramatically after that. Here's a cool page on it. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 16:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I know (much of) that now. But I think it’s been only a couple of years for me personally. Time flies; call it five. How about you? —В²C ☎ 11:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Still catch myself using the article. Old dog, new tricks? I've always thought such things were humorously trivial. That thought of course isn't shared by all, specially "the" Ukrainians. Wikipedia tries so hard to be wonderfully global. There's still a lot of global systemic bias with which to deal. One person's trivialities are another person's lifelong ambitions. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 18:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

En dash

Thanks for the recent RM close. I was about to suggest you try an RM to replace the hyphen in 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis (the article was a bit too heavily edited for me to propose a change), but I see that there's a musical title which is very likely to gain consensus, and it's both hyphen and en-dash free. Boud (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

my pleasure, Boud! Paine  03:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Please review this RM close

I hate to start an RM review but don’t see any choice here. Am I missing something? I would appreciate it if you could take a look and let me know. Talk:The_In_Between_(2022_film)#Requested_move_11_February_2022. Thx. ——В²C ☎ 04:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

To editor В²C: not really sure what the closer was thinking in that one. I probably would have gone with the proposed request as it stood. The closer is an experienced one, so whether or not the closure would be endorsed at MRV is a toss-up. Most likely it would end in no consensus to overturn; I could be wrong. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 22:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. —В²C ☎ 02:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
my pleasure! Paine  02:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Template:User WP Redirect/doc

Template:User WP Redirect/doc, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Deprecated docs and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:User WP Redirect/doc during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 02:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

SPI report

Hi. I just want to make sure you're aware of the discussion at Template talk:SPI report#Template-protected edit request on 2 March 2022. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see my response there. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 01:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll continue this there, but just to address your initial comment, I forgive you :-)
Regarding my request to back out the change, I'm not trying to bust your chops or anything, but that's what's been drilled into me as SOP in industry. If something breaks, back it out and then you've got plenty of time to sort it out and try again when you've got a better handle on what's going on. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Houghton Hall

I believe there was consensus to keep the article at Houghton Hall, East Riding of Yorkshire, those supporting clearly based their reasons on WP:UKPLACE and pointed out the problems with using "Yorkshire" alone, the support was that its sufficient and that UKPLACE apparently doesn't apply to buildings but arguably that could point to Houghton Hall (East Riding of Yorkshire) as to my awareness places that aren't disambiguated by commas generally use the same qualifier as those that do. Otherwise there is no particular guideline for buildings so we should follow the usual format for places even if we were to put the name in brackets, see the move of Hidden Valley (Virginia) for example. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

So sorry, Crouch, Swale, we saw no such consensus either that UKPLACE was applicable or that the article should retain "East Riding". Keep in mind that the request was not granted per se, but only that the long-term consensus was restored for now. The request had been relisted, and when I closed it had enough editors involved to warrant closing rather than another relist. Since I prefer to be flexible with no-consensus outcomes, how do you suggest we proceed? P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 07:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
The longstanding convention is that we don't use historic counties for disambiguation or describe places etc as being "currently" in these counties per Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties (see the former counties part). Editors mentioned about the Yorkshire counties and the Sussex counties using just "Yorkshire" and "Sussex" as opposed to "East Sussex" or "North Yorkshire" etc but even though the historic counties are simpler they are still historic so the problem still may remain. The status of current and former counties is quite controversial in the real world and on Wikipedia (see CountyWatch) and the use "Yorkshire" or "Sussex" may raise questions as to why it hasn't been done with others such as Westmorland. I think if editors want to use "Yorkshire" and "Sussex" for some or all types of places then a RFC should be held rather than a single RM. I agree there's no need to relist as you note it had already been relisted as had been open for over a month. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Looking at the !vote count 5 favoured using the "East Riding of Yorkshire" mainly because it is against the convention and the problems ignoring the convention could cause. If we turn to the 4 supporters of "Yorkshire" alone, the 1st, the nominator did not appear to provide any reasoning for this apart from the fact the article had previously been moved which is not in its self a good reason per WP:CONTENTAGE. The 2nd supporter is largely relying on IAR that the simpler form is better, this is not specific to Houghton Hall but would apply to every building or settlement etc in one of the Yorkshire counties so belongs at a wider discussion. The 3rd is that UKPLACE doesn't apply and is otherwise similar to the 2nd, if so then Houghton Hall (East Riding of Yorkshire) would be appropriate. The 4th doesn't appear to even mention "Yorkshire" so doesn't really make sense. Per WP:RMNOMIN I'd suggest there is community consensus to use the ceremonial county and if editors want to use "Yorkshire" there should be a wider discussion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
It was my understanding of WP:RMNOMIN that led me to move the page back to its previous more stable title under the "no consensus" outcome. So the community consensus found there was helpful; however, I need you to help me see its connection with use of the ceremonial county, because under the circumstances consensus would appear to be for the previous more stable title. With broader community input you may turn out to be correct, and there is really only one way to find out. Let me know where the wider discussion takes place as I will be an interested onlooker. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 04:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
East Riding of Yorkshire is the ceremonial county that Houghton Hall is (currently) in. Yorkshire is a historical county that is now split between 4 ceremonial counties (East Riding of Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire) see History of local government in Yorkshire, there have been a few cases like Dore that were not part of Yorkshire but are now part of one of the Yorkshire counties. For consistency if you look at Category:Buildings and structures in the East Riding of Yorkshire, Category:Buildings and structures in North Yorkshire, Category:Buildings and structures in South Yorkshire and Category:Buildings and structures in West Yorkshire all or at least almost all use the ceremonial county or more specific like the town etc. Even moreso for villages namely Category:Villages in the East Riding of Yorkshire, Category:Villages in North Yorkshire, Category:Villages in South Yorkshire and Category:Villages in West Yorkshire. WP:UKCOUNTIES states "In respect of England, Scotland and Wales, a fundamental part of this guide is to reaffirm the long established position that we do not take the view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the former boundaries" and that the articles "maintain that they no longer function as contemporary counties/subdivisions of territory". While this may seem harmless for Yorkshire and Sussex counties it could quite easily lead to question about why Wallingford, Oxfordshire isn't at Wallingford, Berkshire or Bolton isn't described as currently being within Lancashire etc. If you want me to file a RFC about using "Yorkshire" and "Sussex" alone if possible then I can but if there is consensus against or no consensus then Houghton Hall should be moved back. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for details about ceremonial vs. historic county names, Crouch, Swale. It does raise questions such as why this article stayed so long at the historic name, what with the usual due diligence of UK editors, certainly long enough to be the long-term consensus title for the article? And why do there still seem to be enough editors who support the historic name, enough to frustrate and prevent consensus for the ceremonial county name? Because that is what seems to be the case for this particular article at least. Also, how many more articles still have historic-county qualifiers and need to be changed to ceremonial types? If you think an RfC should be filed, then that is your prerogative and perhaps obligation to perform. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 22:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Probably because contributions from autoconfirmed editors are generally under less scrutiny than IPs and new users its quite easy for things to fall through the cracks. I can't think of any others though Sutton Park, North Yorkshire was fixed a few years ago. RMNOMIN says "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions." but even still there was a slight majority in favour of the ceremonial county. While its true we can and do have exceptions where its not possible to use a "standard" title or there is a common sense reason to ignore the convention nothing here suggested it since the arguments would apply to all places in one of the Yorkshire or Sussex counties that is unique there. I'll start a RFC but it really should be on those who want to change the convention. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Exeter–Andover_rivalry#Requested_move_15_March_2022

Not sure if you meant you were going to re-open, restart, or what, but it's done. Primefac (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Primefac! That must have been a bit of a toughie after years of editing. Yes, the intent is to reopen the RM, and I'll do so directly. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 12:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Super-easy, barely an inconvenience. Primefac (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Jo_In-sung#Requested_move_30_January_2022

Thanks for closing this RM. Just a question, I would have thought that this would be closed as "not moved", not "no consensus". What is the rationale for a "no consensus" over a "not moved"? Natg 19 (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Natg 19, and thank you for coming! While I agree that it was a close call, perhaps even borderline, the arguments on both sides appeared to be fairly strong with one weak oppose rationale, so I saw no agreement in the survey/discussion. Hence "no consensus" was, for me at least, the obvious outcome. Thanks again for being here! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 19:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Miguel Baeza

You closed Talk:Miguel Baeza#Requested move 6 June 2021. That RM has just been relitigated at Talk:Miguel Baeza#Requested move 10 March 2022 with no advertisement to those who participated in the earlier discussion, minimal participation, and a different result. We now have this mess:

Ouch! Can I pass this to you for consideration? Narky Blert (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

To editor Narky Blert: thank you very much for letting me help with this! It looks to me that the recent RM decision was reasonable, so we can accept that the martial artist is the primary topic for the base name. My follow-up then included tagging Miguel Baeza (fighter) with appropriate rcat templates and moving Miguel Baeza (athlete) to Miguel Baeza (disambiguation). I then dabified that page, to include tagging it with {{One other topic}}. Hopefully, that makes it better. Let me know if I can do anything else to improve it. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 19:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! I'm sure the pleasure is all mine. I fortified myself against my aversion to offloading work with the thoughts that you'd seen this group before and that I know of you as something of a ONEOTHER specialist. Narky Blert (talk) 09:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

  • Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for Port Elizabeth listing

Hello Paine Ellsworth, I didn't realize you put a time limit on the Port Elizabeth move requests. Would you be willing to look at the sources and see if the request is reasonable? I think the sources reflect a clear WP:COMMONNAME and that one year is unnecessarily long. Desertambition (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

To editor Desertambition: you have been doing well in the new RM. Remember that "time limits" are just there to remind us that sometimes success relies upon patience, and the longer is the wait, the more likely is a successful outcome. No time limits are etched in stone. Gentle reminder to remain civil and understanding toward the comments of other editors, because whether right or wrong, they are entitled to their opinions. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 03:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

"Template:R from grapheme" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:R from grapheme and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 3#Template:R from grapheme until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Closure requests

Good day Paine! Thank you for your message about {{no admin backlog}} at Wikipedia:Closure requests. I appreciate you letting me know. However, if I try to edit the entire page at once, it will crash the browser on my mobile phone. This is the reason that I put {{admin backlog}} above one of the sections. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

To editor Jax 0677: Hah! That takes me back to the good ol' days, when my desktop computer would crash if I just looked at it funny. You might want to look into Preferences: Gadgets: Appearance where you should be able to include "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page" to your prefs. That way you could edit the lead section without having to load the entire page. Hope this helps. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 15:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
  • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
  • disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
  • is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Baronet#Baronetesses

Regarding your recent change to Baronet, I did a search and I don't see any links to #Baronetesses. Can you give an example of a link which would be broken without this? Thanks, Dan Bloch (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

To editor Dan Bloch: thank you for coming to my talk page! The only link found was fixed at {{Post-nominals/CAN}} per an edit request at Template talk:Post-nominals. Curious as to the extent of your search. Did it include only internal wikilinks, or did it also somehow include external links to Wikipedia? (which can also be broken by section-header and page-title changes) P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 05:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I did an internal search, an "insource:" search for baronetesses, then scanned the small number of results to see that none of them had the word in a link. (A search for "Baronet#Baronetesses" didn't show anything, and I wanted some assurance that the search was working.) I don't know a way to search for external links, but it seems likely to me that this was an error and not a link that ever worked. Dan Bloch (talk) 06:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I checked the history and I don't see any evidence that the plural link ever existed. I'm going to remove the {{anchor}}. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
To editor Dan Bloch: I also checked the history and did not find the plural link within the past four years, so I've removed the anchor. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 21:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

GOCE April 2022 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors April 2022 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the April newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2021.

Election results: Jonesey95 retired as lead coordinator. Reidgreg was approved to fill this role after an 18-month absence from the coordinator team, and Baffle gab1978 was chosen as an assistant coordinator following a one-year break. Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Tenryuu continued on as long-standing assistant coordinators.

January Drive: Of the 22 editors who signed up, 16 editors claimed 146 copy edits including 45 requests. (details)

February Blitz: This one-week effort focused on requests and a theme of Africa and African diaspora history. Of the 12 editors who signed up, 6 editors recorded 21 copy edits, including 4 requests. (details)

March Drive: Of the 28 editors who signed up, 18 claimed 116 copy edits including 25 requests. (details)

April Blitz: This one-week copy editing event has been scheduled for 17–23 April, sign up now!

Progress report: As of 11 April, copy editors have removed approximately 500 articles from the backlog and completed 127 copy-editing requests during 2022. The backlog has been hovering at about 1,100 tagged articles for the past six months.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Tenryuu

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Miguel Baeza (disambiguation)

Notice

The article Miguel Baeza (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

To editor Shhhnotsoloud: thank you very much for this notie! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 16:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

{redirect category shell}

Paine Ellsworth, Happy New Year 2022, 2021, ...
It's good to see that you remain active here.

Quick question. Do these 2017 revisions, plural represent the intended operation of Project {redirect category shell}, pardon the expression? That is, to eliminate the information provided by |e2=* from daughter, illustrator-writer and occasional collaborator with father, to parents. That is: my assignment of parameter value; parameter of your design, as I recall, or your documentation. --P64 (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi P64, thank you, and it's good to hear from you! That was a while back, and if I remember correctly, when we made the transition from "Redr" to the "Rcat shell" template, it was thought that the hatnote may still be useful (so the |e0= parameter transformed into the |h= parameter), but the |e1= thru |e7= parameters were not needed. What I've been doing since then when I thought it necessary is to leave an invisible comment (<!-- (comment) -->) for editors to see if they go to edit a redirect. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 16:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I might take a look at how frequently 7-10 years ago I used e1 or e2 instead of e0, as I maintained all of the Category:Redirects to joint biographies and Redirects from writers, then about 100 and 50 in number.
Seeing the 2020s work on short descriptions, and mention of the value (if not need) for SD some redirects, is what prompted me to look back.
Before doing anything (which will be slowly, too) with redirects from people, I must catch up on the current design for their interlanguage links and identifiers via Wikidata. --P64 (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

your Editnotice

Quick question ;--)
Can you direct me to information on design and implementation of [[./Editnotice]]? Sigh. I think you know what I mean. --P64 (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi again, actually I'm not sure what you mean. Are you asking about my specific talk page edit notice or about edit notices in general? P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 16:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Edit notices (at EN.wiki User talk space, if it's specific) in general. Not {{tmbox}}, which I can read sometime. The part where you have User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Editnotice without the expected parent User:Paine Ellsworth/Editnotice and voila!, "Page notice"[link] and your box displayed above --for me now in Edit mode. --P64 (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
To editor P64: seems like you're looking for WP:Editnotice#User and user talk. And in the case of my edit notice, I just clicked on the "Page notice" link at the top-right and used a Tmbox that I "Shamelessly snuck from User:Gadget850" with personal adaptations. Good fortune to you and yours, P64, and as always, Stay Healthy! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 07:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Ghost train

Thank you for working on the RM backlog! I'm a bit surprised by the close at Talk:Ghost train#Requested move 3 April 2022. Would you mind sharing your thinking there? Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

To editor Uanfala: yes of course. Hope you don't mind if I catch a few z's first; really need some sleep now. Shall return, good lord willin' and the creeks don't rise! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 12:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
To editor Uanfala: admittedly a tough call summed up well by В²C who wrote, "I was going to close in support but Uanfala's argument gave me pause," which gave me pause as well. Read through it more than once, and each time got the impression that while the numbers favored the page move, the args almost didn't – almost but not quite didn't. It can be considered a very close call in spite of the 4.5:2 support:oppose ratio (half-a-vote for the weak support). If the args could be placed on a balance scale, then there would be only a small yet significant difference in favor of support. That's how strong your args were and even with the other somewhat less-than-strong oppose rationale. Thanks for coming and asking, best to you and stay healthy мій друг! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 16:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. No need to let that interfere with daily life, there's no deadline here:) But which numbers did you say favoured the move? – Uanfala (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
my pleasure! Well, the nomination rationale was left wanting; however the other support rationales were strong enough to, when added together, tip the scales. The survey taken as a whole left me with the impression that there was a rough consensus, by the Wikipedia definition, for the page moves. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 16:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
The nomination rationale was straightforward. There is a clear primary topic, what else is there to say? BD2412 T 22:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Nothing more really. Water under the bridge. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 11:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Canada_convoy_protest/Archive_4#Requested_move_5_February_2022

Why was Canada_convoy_protest moved at Talk:Canada_convoy_protest/Archive_4#Requested_move_5_February_2022 if there was no consensus to move? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jax 0677 and thank you for coming here! Took another look to find that there was consensus to move away from the then current title. There just wasn't any agreement as to which title would be best. So under OTHEROPTIONS, I chose a title among those proposed. There was no consensus for the title I chose, but yes, there was most certainly a consensus to move away from the old title. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 17:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Protected template edit requests

Hey there! Thanks for handling my edit earlier. I wanted to ask, so that I don't make somebody's life a living hell - is there such a thing as too many requests to edit a template at once? I'm trying to get through the backlog of pages that call for unsupported schools on that template, and I'm coming up with a LOT of things. Is it in poor taste to drop dozens of edit requests at the same time on one template? -fuzzy510 (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Good question, fuzzy510! To be honest, I think some editors may shy away from huge, long edit requests. Also, it would be a little easier on you and the sandbox if we do just a few at a time. That would be my move, but that's just me. Thanks very much for coming to my talk page and for your work on the unsupported schools! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 00:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Gautama Buddha

Does "no prejudice" in your RM close mean no prejudice against immediately opening a new move request to either of the titles that received the most support? Rather than observing the typical waiting period. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 12:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ruбlov, and thank you for coming to my talk page! Yes, that is what I meant by "no prejudice". I anticipated that there would be as many as 19 editors who favored "Buddha" and at least 6 who liked "The Buddha", and I did not want to stand in their way. Keep in mind that there were 15 editors who opposed any page move from the article's current title, so there will probably be quite a bit of dislike for any new proposed title. Thanks again and Best to you! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 17:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I should probably let it go... but I think there's a strong case for a move to "The Buddha" that could get consensus with a carefully-written nomination statement. I'll get on it. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 17:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
my pleasure! Paine  17:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I thought the close correct and well-considered. Perhaps this isn't the correct venue, but I'm of two minds on an immediate new RM: 1) There was significant, clear and strong policy-based expressed opposition to any move, and I'll confess I oppose such a move myself, so I would think another request unsuccessful; and 2) We're already hip-deep in dung now; why not battle it out to a conclusion, so to speak. To User:Paine Ellsworth, thanks for the value you add by closing, whether we agree or not. BusterD (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
And again it's my pleasure, BusterD! It would seem that our minds are not that far apart. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 18:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't want to re-litigate the RM on Paine's talk page (I have no objection to the closure), but I think the arguments of the supporters were substantially stronger policy-wise than the opposes; otherwise I wouldn't consider opening another RM in the face of such numerical opposition. I hope that with a good nomination statement I can address the main opposition points and avoid some of the rancor of the previous RM. I do think we should reach a definitive conclusion one way or the other. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 18:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
second thoughts... Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 18:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Your views are appreciated. I found the hectoring and mild bludgeoning troubling; I believe I cautioned more than one participant about language. I wish there was some way of asking participants state their case without undue side discussion or on-the-spot evaluation/discounting. I don't wish to shortcut discussion procedures, but there was a fair amount of "gaming" activity, including a sudden change of move target during the process. If I could be helpful in drafting a better RM (even one I'd oppose), I'd make myself available. BusterD (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Country data Malaya/doc

Template:Country data Malaya/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Jonesey95, for the heads up! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 11:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for the bad nomination. Here's a dumb technical tip: When you make a /doc page for an existing template, go back to the main template page (one level up) and do a null edit (click edit and then save without making any changes). Example: If you create Template:Foo/doc, go to Template:Foo and click Edit and Publish. That refreshes the /doc page's list of transclusions and prevents it from showing up on the report of template pages with no transclusions. The MediaWiki job queue eventually catches up and refreshes it, but that can take more than a day sometimes. It's a dumb hack workaround, but it will help avoid misunderstandings like mine. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Good tip! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 17:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Template:College break?

Soooooo, any guesses as to why that template is broken on every occurrence of "Duke" on the site? About 1100 pages just got dumped into the maintenance category, and I can't see why it is - I haven't touched that entry, and I don't see where there's any differences in the edits you've made that would cause that......fuzzy510 (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Also seeing it now on Florida and Florida International......fuzzy510 (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
To fuzzy510: looks like we've reached the switch limit...  workin' on it, boss. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 08:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
To fuzzy510: this is taking longer than I expected to fix, so edits to the live template have been reverted temporarily until my tests at Template:College/testcases#Test 1 have been successful. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 10:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
To fuzzy510: looks like the errors began to occur as the result of this edit I made to the live template based on this edit you added to the sandbox. Take a look down a little past Line 225. A closing nowiki tag, </nowiki>, and a comment, <!-- The formal name of the university is Detroit Mercy, and UDM now uses Detroit Mercy in an athletic context as well. were added. Unsure why you would add a closing nowiki tag when there was no opening nowiki tag, however the worst part was that the comment did not have a closing tag (-->). So everything after that was treated as if it were part of the comment. None of the links after that would work. All of your other edits to include your most recent have been restored/added to the live template; however, I would like to keep this on hold until I make a few more checks. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 13:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Sure thing. I'll keep adding things to my running list, as well as fixing the references that don't require any edits to the template, while keeping an eye out for any other errors. Thank you for your help with this, and sincerest apologies for the sloppy edit on my part. fuzzy510 (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I've not discovered anything that appears amiss from my sorting through the maintenance category today. Let me know when you want to take things off hold, and I've got plenty more to add......fuzzy510 (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
You see, fuzzy510, it's that "plenty more to add" phrase that gives me pause.
Technical:

The College template is run by a switch function seen at the top as

  • {{#switch:{{{1|<noinclude>¬</noinclude>}}} – just that one switch.

And switches have limitations. Just a few years ago switches could only have a maximum of 100 parameters (each parameter begins with a | (pipe symbol)). Template College now has nearly 3,000 pipe symbols, so the switch limitation has obviously been expanded. My understanding is that now switches can have from 1,000 to 2,000 pipes and still operate okay. It's mostly a matter of time – page loading time. A switch compares its first value, in this case the college name in its first parameter, with all the college names that are inside the template until it finds the same name, and then it provides a link. The comparison begins with in this case the A's, then the B's and so on. So it finds a college that begins with "C" faster than it would find one that begins with "W".

So the bottom line is how long it takes for the switch to find the college name affects how long it takes to load a page that has the College template in it, when a user loads the page. And when more colleges are added, the slower the loading gets. There are solutions to this, and I am presently checking them out and will implement one soon. Then we can get underway again. By the way, can you give me an idea about how many more is "plenty"? P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 16:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Rough estimate? About 250 *schools* that haven't been moved over......and I haven't finished parsing through the Ms yet. It's hard to say how many of the 3,100 pages in that category haven't been touched, since the nature of how that category sorts is to sort by whatever is being called for - if there are multiple errors, and I resolve the one that is earliest in the alphabet but not all of them, it'll still pop up later.
I am admittedly not terribly knowledgeable about template back-end workings, so I don't know that I've got anything resembling constructive advice that I can give. What I can say is that I've been pretty liberal with using pipes to cover many bases for how a college could be listed - I definitely can and will be more conservative on that, and if it would do anything to cause pages to load faster, I'm happy to shift my attention to going through everything listed with a fine-tooth comb to thin things out further both from my additions and established entries.
You seem like you have a handle on things (far more than I would, certainly!), but please let me know if there's any way I can assist. -fuzzy510 (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
To editor ­fuzzy510: more switches have been added to {{College/sandbox}}, which will speed things up. You can add more schools to that sandbox now, and just ignore the switches when you see them. They are on their own line, and should stay that way. I'll continue to watch that talk page. And fyi, I've added auto-archiving to shorten the talk page. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 19:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Awesome. I'll get back to it. Thanks! fuzzy510 (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Farukh - recent move

I don't claim to own the article - where are you taking this from? I am interested in the article's improvement and the improvement of Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh articles in general.

As I stated previously, the anglicization of "Farux" to "Farukh" was a not a point of contention or the subject of the move discussion, but it's move to its likely common name "Parukh". This article (and the majority of the Nagorno-Karabakh geographic articles for villages) had minimal content and sources (using GEOnet Names Server as the only source for the name) and there was little historical or political context present on the article for years until recently.

I think it's problematic to define "Farux" as the "long-term consensus name" for the village pointing to WP:RMNOMIN and moving it to that name without further inspection of the context. As I understand the guideline, moving an article back to a stable name is recommended when "a requested move is filed in response to a recent move from a long existing name that cannot be undone without administrative help", I don't believe that was the case here - the move from "Farux" to "Farukh" was not the topic of the move discussion.

I understand how a "no consensus" close can be seen as the only option when a move discussion gets as messy as that one was - what I am contesting is the rationale with regard to the guidelines in moving "Farukh" to "Farux" afterwards and the rearranging of the Azerbaijani and Armenian scripts and transliterations on the page in the way that it's been done which in my view is not an improvement with regard to the article's readability and quality. I think an anglicization of the name to "Farukh" is a clear improvement. AntonSamuel (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

To editor AntonSamuel: thank you very much for coming to my talk page!
I don't claim to own the article - where are you taking this from?
From your first sentence on the article's talk page: "Hey, moving the article to 'Farux' and the way you've rearranged the Azerbaijani and Armenian scripts and transliterations on the page is not an improvement of my article in my view." You said "my article" and that indicates that you think you own the article. If that's not what you meant, then in the future you might want to word that type of statement a different way.
Glad you understand that there was no consensus in the page-move discussion. Reverting back to an old title is sometimes not an improvement; however, that is what must be done if there is no consensus for either the current title or the proposed title in a move request. "Farux" was the title of the article from 2008 until this past January, and that's a long time. You are welcome to strengthen the arguments, maybe find some new arguments and try again in a few months to build consensus for a name change. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 07:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, "my article" was a clear typo - it's fixed now! Well, then I disagree with your interpretation of the guidelines - I don't intend to initiate a move discussion for the article since move discussions for localities that have been recently contested in Nagorno-Karabakh tend to be easily disrupted and then closed with no consensus as was the case here. I take it you don't intend to revert your move and move the article back to "Farukh", would you be against me taking such an initative or would you see that as a hostile and problematic revert? If so, would a move review be your recommendation if I wanted to contest your move of the article to "Farux"? AntonSamuel (talk) 07:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Glad to see that your "my article" was a typo, AntonSamuel – I've done the same thing at times and was pointed to the ownership policy. Clearly your expertise and relationship with these articles is one of stewardship, not ownership, and that's a good thing! From here forward we shall assume good faith on your part. Since "Farux" is the long-term stable title, and since there was clearly no agreement in the move request to either rename the article "Parukh" nor to retain the "Farukh" title, my opinion is that the page move back to "Farux" should not be reverted and would be endorsed at move review. If you decide to open a move review, then I would be honored to learn whether we are correct or not. Disagreement on Wikipedia is never a bad thing and usually ends with long-lasting improvement of "our" content. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 19:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth I thought that rough consensus was for the common name "Parukh". I also wanted to ask why it was closed as no consensus? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
To editor ZaniGiovanni: thank you for coming to my talk page! I don't think this was a tough call, that is, "no consensus" seemed to be pretty clear. The main policy argument was COMMONNAME, and editors could not agree which name, Farukh or Parukh, would be considered the common name. There was an almost even split of opinion on this, with a slight favor for "Parukh". So I think my closure was spot on. Also, whether or not "Farux" is "pointless" as opined in your response to editor Golden below, it remains the stable, long-term consensus title from the year 2008. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 19:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
There is no policy prohibiting or discouraging Wikipedia from using non-anglicised (different from transliteration!) names, and in many cases, the non-anglicised name is preferred over the anglicised one, as in Gdańsk or Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. In my opinion, anglicising the name of a tiny village is not a "clear improvement". — Golden call me maybe? 09:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
@Golden: You've quite enthusiastically argued and worked for the anglicization of Azerbaijani place names and provinces previously, such as for Ağdam to Aghdam, so that argumentation is interesting. "Farux" isn't even the current Azerbaijani name for the village, as the Azerbaijani government now uses "Fərrux", so the current format is quite problematic on many accounts. "Farukh" or "Parukh" has been utilized widely in international and regional media lately [1]. A move back to "Farukh" would be more than appropriate in my view considering the circumstances. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I have indeed, but only for large cities or provinces which have an established common name in English-language media. I don't believe tiny villages which are almost never covered outside local media should have a unique English name. — Golden call me maybe? 10:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
@Golden: Didn't you actually add the anglicization "Farukh" on the article to begin with? [2] AntonSamuel (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Adding an anglicisation in the article and changing the article's name are two very different things. — Golden call me maybe? 18:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't believe tiny villages which are almost never covered outside local media should have a unique English name. — so which one is it?
I agree with AntonSamuel. "Farux" is pointless when it isn't even official in Azeri or Armenian. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Move review

To editor AntonSamuel: this is to inform you that a move review has been opened for my closure of this move request. This action has been taken specifically because you have renamed the article "Farukh" against the long-term, stable consensus and against the lack of consensus for that title we found in the move request. The review can be found at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 May#Farux. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 00:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Closing a requested move at Jimin (singer, born 1995)

I was wondering if you could close this. 52-whalien (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to my talk page, 52-whalien! Sorry, I cannot close your move request. For one thing, as of this moment your move request is still active and one week has not yet elapsed. For another thing, it's considered inappropriate to ask any single editor to close a move request. So I would be in violation of WP:RMCI#Conflicts of interest if I were to close your RM. Please read that information so you will know how to solicit RM closures in the future. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 01:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for informing me. I will read more about it! 52-whalien (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
my pleasure! Paine  01:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Panjshir conflict#Requested move 29 April 2022

i saw that you closed the requested move to move the page. but you appear to have forgotten to do so...? ああ、またか。晚安。 07:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

To editor ああ、またか。: please be patient. "Panjshir conflict" is fully move-protected, so there is a technical request in place that is awaiting admin action. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 07:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
ah, understood. ああ、またか。晚安。 07:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Question for administrator

It's been 12 hours since the inquiry above the Admin help box and nearly 20 hours since I listed this RM at WP:RMTR. May this page please be renamed in accord with Talk:Panjshir conflict#Requested move 29 April 2022? (just noticed that admin Anthony Appleyard, who often works at RMTR, hasn't edited since the 13th of February, possibly on extended holiday.)

--P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 19:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Done. I'm not entirely convinced the consensus is crystal clear and there may be more discussion, but the move also doesn't seem controversial.  Frank  |  talk  22:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
To editor Frank: thank you so much for your help in this! Now I shall get started on the post-move cleanup. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 22:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Template: College

Hey! While there are still going to be a couple of changes that will need to be made, the vast majority of the additions to {{College}} have been made, so the couple of weeks of there always being 15 schools ready to be added should be largely over.

Thank you so much for your help in clearing those in a timely fashion, as well as fixing things on the back end when it was clear we were going to have issues with the number of calls that template made. You've made what could have been a seriously cumbersome task much easier to accomplish. -fuzzy510 (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Pleasure's all mine!  Paine  22:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello Paine Ellsworth,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 804 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 851 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Getting more comments

Do you have any suggestions on how we could get more constructive comments on the move proposal at Talk:OpenSearch (software)? Most of the comments so far are from editors with a handful of edits. I have tried RFC and posting on three Project pages. --Macrakis (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Macrakis and thank you for coming to my talk page! I'm sure you know about WP:MULTI, so be careful with that. Your move request has been listed at WP:RM, and it's listed twice on the WP:COMP Wikiproject page, once under RfCs and once under RMs, so it's gotten good exposure. I'd say you've done everything possible to advertise it, so keep a good eye on it. Wish I could be more helpful. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 13:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, especially since I have a WP:COI, I've been very careful about all that. I'm just disappointed that experienced, uninvolved editors haven't contributed to the discussion. --Macrakis (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 May 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Editing newsletter 2022 – #1

Read this in another language • Subscription list for the multilingual newsletter • Local subscription list

New editors were more successful with this new tool.

The New topic tool helps editors create new ==Sections== on discussion pages. New editors are more successful with this new tool. You can read the report. Soon, the Editing team will offer this to all editors at most WMF-hosted wikis. You can join the discussion about this tool for the English Wikipedia is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Enabling the New Topic Tool by default. You will be able to turn it off in the tool or at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.

The Editing team plans to change the appearance of talk pages. These are separate from the changes made by the mw:Desktop improvements project and will appear in both Vector 2010 and Vector 2022. The goal is to add some information and make discussions look visibly different from encyclopedia articles. You can see some ideas at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project#Prototype Ready for Feedback.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

23:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
  • The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Malaysian Malay

Hello! Thank you for your attention trying to fix some articles related to Malaysian Malay, but I noticed that you mistakenly redirected the Malaysian Malay to Malaysian Malays (about people). 'Malaysian Malay' is the official standard dialect used in Malaysia, meanwhile 'Malaysian Malays' (which actually should be named as "Malay Malaysians") is the people. If you're confuse, when it comes to languages, the language name is placed behind, but when it comes to people, the ethnicity name should be placed in front. For instance, the Chinese people articles named as Chinese Americans, Chinese Australians, etc.; the Welsh people articles named as Welsh Americans, Welsh Australians, etc.; the English people named as English Americans, English Australians. Meanwhile, for the language scope, it would be American English, British English, Singaporean English, etc. So, the article of 'Malaysian Malay' should be about the language/dialect, meanwhile the 'Malay Malaysians' (which mistakenly named in article as 'Malaysian Malays' ) is about the people.
Actually if you notice, there are a lot of flaws when it comes to articles related to Malaysia, and I hope you would like to help to fix it, for example:

Interesting. Thank you for coming to my talk page, editor Lingmatian! I was just the closer and page mover based on the first move request at Talk:Malaysian Malays#Requested move 24 May 2022, which at least depicted the people in the plural sense. There is an open move request at Talk:Malaysian language#Requested move 3 June 2022 that addresses your concern about how to name the language. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 10:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paine_Ellsworth/Archive_22&oldid=1106711992"