![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Re these 2 RfDs. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 13:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to bring your attention to Talk:Trans-Canada Highway#Requested move 11 March 2018. Your grounds for moving Jungang Line to Jungang line is sufficient reason to move Trans-Canada Highway to Trans-Canada highway, that MOS on capitalisation is more important than the fact that "Trans-Canada Highway" is a proper name. 2Q ( talk) 19:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Something new - I've just been made aware that Move review is a thing... I think I'm going to open one (unless you're willing to un-close and undo the move), because I don't believe that the discussion should have been closed yet in favour of a move - at best there is no consensus yet... which generally means things should stay where they are until consensus to move away from the long-standing title happens... 2Q ( talk) 20:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Agree with the close.
But disagree with the policy! If you have time (it's longish) User:Andrewa/Let us abolish the whole concept of primary topic is now worth a read IMO, and still developing. Comments on its talk page more than welcome of course. Andrewa ( talk) 02:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
There are several errors in this entry. First my book on Romaine Brooks: A life (University of Wisconsin 2016) cited in the footnotes several times but missing from the bibliography. Secondly: Romaine is not buried with Romaine. She is actually buried in the family plot in Nice. RomaineB ( talk) 03:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for the History section in Children in the military. And your other good work in these areas. Gog the Mild ( talk) 12:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC) |
ACTRIAL:
Paid editing
Subject-specific notability guidelines
Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled
News
How do the three opposes have stronger arguments than the six supports? One of them makes no sense at all and another was treating RM like AfD. — Xezbeth ( talk) 17:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Paine, do you know the reasons behind this edit? I am not sure I understand what is happening here. There are several of these requests at WP:RM right now, and I agree that the changes appear to be uncontroversial at first glance, but since there are a lot of transfusions of these and the redirects were changed from protected templates to other templates with similar names, I'm not sure quite what's going on and was unwilling to put them through myself. Can you explain it to me? Also pinging User:Gonta-Kun. Dekimasu よ! 19:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Paine
Please could I ask you to look again at your close of the Physical exercise RM? While on the face of it the votes were split, there was a body of early votes which I think misunderstood the RM, thinking it was a primary topic debate (it's not, because Exercise already redirects here). After the relist, I put in a support vote, citing WP:COMMONANME and WP:CONCISE, and since then there hasn't been a substantial argument offered in opposition (discounting the vacuous "this is an exercise in futility"). In particular, I'd ask you to look at RedSlash's well argued support !vote, and the agreements that followed that. It looks like a fairly clear consensus to move to me. Thanks! — Amakuru ( talk) 09:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm struggling to understand why the template {{
Wikidata-redirect}}
has been added to numerous minor-planet redirects, such as
here, since the template's documentation was quite puzzling to me. Could you plz tell me the basic idea? Also, has {{Wikidata-redirect}} been applied consistently to all minor-planet redirects, or is there still a need for followup edits? Thx,
Rfassbind
– talk
15:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to the general result of the recent move discussion, but I am mystified by the part about a "definite general agreement" to reject the proposed move. Of the comments dealing with the original proposal, I count one "oppose", one "support", and one "agnostic". That doesn't look very definite to me. Care to elaborate? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 05:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:HUMOUR. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:HUMOUR redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
ACTRIAL:
Deletion tags
Backlog drive:
Editathons
Paid editing - new policy
Subject-specific notability guidelines
Not English
News
The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.
By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.
I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.
Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.
If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.
Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 08:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ ping}} me. Thank you. -TT
Sorry for the random year-long disappearance. Illness+wiki-stress+other real life issues conspired against me. Is there any specific redirect/redir-cat/redir-template work you feel could specifically use a helping hand at the moment, or is it still pretty much 'well there's about a hundred-thousand redirects to be templated and categorized for every user doing any redir work so it doesn't really matter where you start, it'll be a decade before we're done anyway?' :P AddWittyNameHere ( talk) 00:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— EBU R128—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mr X ☎️ 01:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Greetings. Would you consider doing the histmerge suggested by AjaxSmack for edits up to 03:33, 11 March 2013? This was the genesis of the article currently at Shinola, which had to be recreated piecemeal starting in 2015. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 20:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello Paine Ellsworth, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.
Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I saw that someone has added a few subcategories to {{ R to monotypic taxon}} much like the already-working spider/plant/fungi categories. Unfortunately, they're not actually in use because the template wasn't updated. I figure either the template should be updated or the categories deleted, what would you say is best here? AddWittyNameHere ( talk) 17:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with your reading of consensus, but I suppose I have no recourse? Yngvadottir ( talk) 20:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
You may want to register the username in your signature in the event that someone hijacks and/or registers that name themselves. Best beat vandalism/impersonation at the pass. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello Paine, I was looking at some rcats today, and noticed that among them we are using two different parameter names for the category. For example, {{
R from former name}} uses |main category=
whereas {{
R from short name}} uses |all category=
. Is there a reason for having the two parameters? If so, when is the one used as well as the other? Thank you.--
John Cline (
talk)
16:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
|main category=
, then the rcat can only be used in the main, article namespace, and should not be used in any other namespaces. If the parameter is |all category=
, then the rcat can be used in any namespace. There is more on this at
Template:Redirect template#Parameters. You'll remember that {{
Redirect template}} is the meta template used in all the rcats.
Paine Ellsworth
put'r there
18:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Paine, I appreciate that clarification. I did look at the documentation for {{Redirect template}}
; noticing the namespace segregation intended. The actual thrust of my concern was spawned by the Rcat's behavior associated with which category parameter was being used.
Notice at
Special:ExpandTemplates how {{R from short name}}
when transcluded as input and subsequently expanded results in the "preview" section showing the hidden "R"-category where tagged pages are grouped. Yet when {{R from former name}}
is expanded, no hidden categorization is shown. And, more importantly, when the "results" section is examined, the coding shows that no categorization for the rcat is rendering at all (for the given circumstances). If nothing else, it represents opportunities for maintenance categorization that are being missed, IMHO.
Before endeavoring those improvements, please tell me where the {{ Redirect template}} generates Category:Printworthy redirects and Category:Unprintworthy redirects? I can't parse their origin anywhere within the template's coding. Thank you again.-- John Cline ( talk) 23:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
... was this made? We (WikiProject University) have spent countless hours making sure that university navboxes are the colors of the school it's for. The color you chose was not even close to the school's colors providing false information. I'm just curious as to why. Corky 02:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The categories, Category:Redirects from sort names and Category:Redirects from ambiguous sort names are growing unwieldy. I plan to subdivide them in two ways for increased searchability, by creating a set of subcategories Category:Redirects from sort names, A, Category:Redirects from sort names, B, Category:Redirects from sort names, C, etc., and by creating a set of subcategories Category:Redirects from sort names by article title, A, Category:Redirects from sort names by article title, B, Category:Redirects from sort names by article title, C. Under this scheme, Adams, Chester (a redirect to the article Chester Adams) would fall into Category:Redirects from sort names, A and Category:Redirects from sort names by article title, C, and Johnson, Frank (a redirect to the disambiguation page Frank Johnson) would fall into Category:Redirects from ambiguous sort names, J and Category:Redirects from ambiguous sort names by article title, F. These would ideally be implemented with parameters at the respective templates, so that the first would be implemented by adding {{R from sort name||A|C}}, and the second would be implemented by adding {{R from ambiguous sort name||J|F}}. I can create the 104 new categories and assign a bot to sort the ~90,000 sort name redirects into these subcategories. Is this reasonable doable? bd2412 T 15:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence |
Just to briefly reiterate what I wrote over at Template talk:R from Twitter username, thank you for your diligence in mulling over an issue, finding a rather obscure but nifty template to resolve it, and then applying it. And I'm really sorry you removed all those DEFAULTSORT keys by hand; you should have something beforehand, I could have done it in <10 minutes with AWB. Cheers for going the extra three miles! — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 01:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC) |
I just encountered template {{
Wikidata redirect}}
in one of the minor-planet redirects, namely
(6721) Minamiawaji. When I transferred it to the correct, non-parenthetical version
6721 Minamiawaji, the template showed [(no entity)]
instead of the object's name. Unfortunately, my attempt to change the name to the non-parenthetical version on the corresponding
WikiData page 6721 Minamiawaji (bottom Wikipedia section) failed with the message: "Could not save due to an error.The save has failed. The link enwiki:List of minor planets: 6001–7000 is already used by item Q313483. You may remove it from Q313483 if it does not belong there or merge the items if they are about the exact same topic." Things don't make much sense to me; thought I let you know since you added said template to the redirect some months ago.
Rfassbind
– talk
23:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
|1=
parameter that can hold the Wikidata page number that follows the "Q" in the following manner:{{Rcat shell| {{Wikidata redirect|151393}} }}
|1=<number>
isn't needed; however, anytime a redirect needs to be attached to a Wikidata item, we can do so whether or not there is a "Wikidata item" link in the left margin. Hope this helps.
Paine Ellsworth
put'r there
02:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for my first, grumpy post above (it was already early in the morning). My bad. I think this this topic is important, as there are tens of thousands #R-to-list for minor planets. Can you point me into the right direction so I can learn more about wikidata's overall goal and the rules how to handle #R-to-lists?
I saw your . As far as I understood it you entered the parenthetical version as alias on the top section of WikiData page 6721 Minamiawaji and then you were able to make a change to the non-parenthetical version on the bottom of the page (correct?). This seems not to work for regular cases such as recently named minor plants or other #R-to-list such as for astronomer Plinio Antolini; WikiData page Plinio Antolini (Q530732). I'll better stop here with my feedback. I'm just worried that there is potentially a huge counterproductive misunderstanding between what I'm doing and wikidata. Be well as well. Rfassbind – talk 13:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
{{
Rcat}}
to these redirects, and I fully support it, but when a "wikidata redirect" is added to a secondary-#R (which I consider unhelpful in the first place), a "rcat"-tpl is distracting from the important message of "avoided double redirect" which displays the correct target (see
(6721) Minamiawaji.
Rfassbind
– talk
14:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Paine, I observed an interesting effect and thought I'd share it with you just in case you have an idea what might be causing this.
I haven't had time to investigate this further, but do you have any idea what might be causing this strange behaviour? Thanks. -- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 16:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
<includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{#invoke:redirect|isRedirect|{{TALKPAGENAME}}}}|yes|{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME:{{#invoke:redirect|main|{{TALKPAGENAME}}}}}}|{{PAGENAME:{{#invoke:redirect|main|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}}||[[Category:Unsynchronized ambiguous term talk page redirects]]}}}}</includeonly>
isRedirect
may have a similar effect as #ifexist. Regarding the flagging of hatnotes, I find that useful for finding misspellings in hatnotes. We shouldn't have hatnotes that say "misspelling" redirects here. So that problem, to me is a nice feature, not a bug. –
wbm1058 (
talk)
03:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
{{#invoke:redirect|main|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}
" makes a transclusion of itself. There isn't really any way to fix this; making
Module:Redirect use redirectTarget (as I had, incidently, done a few months ago in
Module:Redirect/sandbox) would still create a transclusion per the lua reference manual. The second effect in
EAGLE (program) is because
Module:Redirect hatnote checks if the target of the redirect linked is the same as the page itself (as it should be) and adds a tracking category if it is different. Checking the target adds the page as a transclusion (and the target is only checked if the page is a redirect).
Galobtter (
pingó mió)
05:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Your recent editing history at Apitherapy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog ( talk) 02:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Jytdog ( talk) 02:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.
There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: /info/en/?search=Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{ infobox ship}} is parsed).
If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.
Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.
You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.
There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.
Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.
It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.
The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.
A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.
We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.
Let's do this.
See ya at the WikiProject!
Sincerely, —
The Transhumanist
10:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
|
Hello Paine Ellsworth, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
You are currently all over my watchlist and it is making me laugh. Are you working from a list of your own, or something else? - Roxy, the dog. barcus 17:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
How on earth do you work out the article needs moving with eight people against seven for a move? Govvy ( talk) 22:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
...this could goto WP:AN.
I think this should go to an RfC as suggested, so whether it's reopened, overturned or whatever is not terribly important, except as input to that RfC. Interested as always in other views. Andrewa ( talk) 16:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of A.F.C. Bournemouth. 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. Govvy ( talk) 12:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
How did you weight the strength of the Support votes and the Oppose votes (taking in to account policies and guidelines such as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), or did you just do a headcount and conclude "No consensus" as the vote was evenly divided? Iffy★ Chat -- 11:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Copied to Move review
|
---|
|
To editor Born2cycle: With your agreement, I'd like to copy the above hatted discussion to MR so it won't be perceived as a discussion fork. Paine Ellsworth put'r there 21:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of In My Feelings (song). 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. Iffy★ Chat -- 15:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Since we talked about minor planets and Wikidata recently, I would like to ask you to give some insight into a discussion on my Wikidata user page. Another user suggested not to link redirects on Wikidata as only articles should be linked. Thx for your expertise. Rfassbind – talk 13:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello Paine Ellsworth, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing
|
---|
|
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Paine. Happy New Year. I am no longer a hard worker right here, and barely any worker on redirects. This concerns miscellaneous redirects. If you have retired from that effort, please give me a lead.
Last hour I corrected and expanded one R from person. Upon save ( [1] [old version]), I redd the warning :
and the familiar accompaniment:
So I inserted a pipe, closing the hatnote parameter and initiating a second parameter, if i understand correctly. See the redirect Sebastian Walker (publisher) [current]. Examining the two page footers, as displayed by this browser, I find no difference but the listing "Miscellaneous redirects" among Hidden categories. All the expected categories are populated in both cases regardless whether the R templates are included in the first parameter with the hatnote text, or as a separate second parameter. Also the hatnote is displayed identically, whether or not its text is terminated as a parameter value. Perhaps the template operation can be tweaked to ignore such, rather than display the warning and populate Miscellaneous redirects.
I'm not sure how to interpret the generalization, "This template is a learning tool ...". Is the template, used with parameter values that specify Redirect categories, still recommended? And the template redirect 'Redr' rather than the long name? -- P64 ( talk) 20:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
|1=
or |2=
, and the fact that the hatnote is applied by the named parameter, |h=
. The hatnote must end in a pipe to place the rcats in the first unnamed parameter. The warning text was added for two main reasons: 1) some experienced editors, who know how to apply rcats, were adding just the bare Rcat shell and leaving the categorization to those of us who monitor the
Miscellaneous redirects category, and 2) some editors wanted to apply the Rcat shell using a bot, which would have flooded the Misc. category and would have made it impossible to maintain.
|
Hello Paine Ellsworth, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
As of 21 October 2018 [update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
You edited Template:Quaternary (period) on 28 October 2018, for example by including the "collapse" parameter. I think this is causing an error "Template:collapse is not available for use in articles (see MOS:COLLAPSE)" in the Holocene article. Can you investigate this problem, please. GeoWriter ( talk) 17:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter • Subscription list on the English Wikipedia
Did you know?
Did you know that you can use the visual editor on a mobile device?
Tap on the pencil icon to start editing. The page will probably open in the wikitext editor.
You will see another pencil icon in the toolbar. Tap on that pencil icon to the switch between visual editing and wikitext editing.
Remember to publish your changes when you're done.
You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.
Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has wrapped up most of their work on the 2017 wikitext editor and the visual diff tool. The team has begun investigating the needs of editors who use mobile devices. Their work board is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are fixing bugs and improving mobile editing.
— Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 17:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Anyone can edit. Since you had some involvement with the Anyone can edit redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. |
Hello Paine Ellsworth,
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Paine Ellsworth. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | |
Three years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Care for a cup of tea, after fixing all those redirects on religion topics? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC) |
There are now 4,180 portals.
Will we break 5,000 by the end of the year?
I know we can. But, that is up to you!
( New portals are created with {{subst:Basic portal start page}}
or
{{subst:bpsp}}
)
Hello everyone! Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice (if it's occurring in your area of the world), and thanks for your work in maintaining, improving, and expanding portals. Cheers, — The Transhumanist 06:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
The following portals have been created since the last issue:
Keep 'em coming!
By the way, the above list was generated using this Petscan query. It can be easily modified by changing the date. The data page (under the Output tab) also has options for receiving the data in CSV or tabbed format, which some operating systems automatically load into a spreadsheet program for ease of use, such as copying and pasting the desired column (like page names).
We'll keep it short this issue.
Expect a flood next time. Or the one after that.
Cheerio, — The Transhumanist 07:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Paine,
I noticed you signed up as a participant at WP:WPPORT. I'm glad you did.
A great deal has happened since the RfC last spring. In case you'd like to catch up with the newsletter, the archives can be found at WP:WPPORTNA.
We dream up new features at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Design#Discussions about possible cool new features.
The main portal model is contained in {{ bpsp}}, and is packed with templates.
You can find other useful templates listed on the {{ Portal templates navbox}}.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.
Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 11:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
P.S.: I'll be contacting you again soon, about AWB.
Nice. I see that you are way up on
WP:NOE, so I don't have to be gentle.
Okay, here's the situation: we've added thousands of new portals. Many of those are orphaned. They need links leading to them.
There are 3 main links that we have been concentrating on, that can be placed using AWB:
For each portal...
{{Portal|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}
. I've been removing other portal boxes, because they are off-topic for the lead section of a category page.| below =
section, using * {{icon|Portal}} [[Portal:{{subst:PAGENAME}}|Portal]]
. If there is no | below =
, add it.* {{Portal inline|size=tiny|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}
in the See also section of the corresponding (like-named) root article. If there is no See also section, make one. Generally remove other portal links unless they are particularly on-topic. If there are columns, the link needs to go in there.These are somewhat advanced AWB tasks, because you'll hit contingencies as you go along which will require that you create additional regexes. Such cases tend to repeat, so the task gets faster as you go along.
You'll also be using the skipping features a lot, most likely, for pages that do not apply. Like templates that are not corresponding navboxes (there's competition for the titles), soft category redirects, and so on.
For each of these tasks, to get the starting list takes a bit of list judo...
For example, for placing the portal box on like-named categories...
You get a list of All portals, then convert that to a list of categories in a sandbox by swapping out the prefix, and pull the resulting blue links off the sandbox into AWB.
You can then use AWB's preparse feature to skip existing portal box placements, using AWB's %%title%% magic word to avoid matching just any portal box.
If you have a second computer, it helps to use that to check the work (via contribs and browser tabs). Or another window. A user can be logged in to WP multiple times.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.
Portals are lucky that you came along. I look forward to working with you.
Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 01:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for sorting the OR in Robert Cochrane to its Talk Page. A friendly cookie to a helpful & kindly Wikipedian! Manytexts ( talk) 23:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC) |
"I close RMs all the time and nominators do NOT also "support", or if they do, their !vote is removed
" - after removing said "!vote" twice, the second time from a closed discussion, do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? (btw- I take it there aren't any admin backlogs, anywhere, right now...) -
wolf
20:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that you recently removed the Too much detail tag in the ancestry section of this article. I agree that the tag is inappropriate. There's currently a discussion on the article's talk page about this. It'd be super if you could participate over there. This edit war has been going on for some time (on various pages) and it would be great to have a substantive discussion and actually reach consensus on this sort of thing. Best, Flyte35 ( talk) 22:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello Paine Ellsworth,
This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
See also the list of top 100 reviewers.
The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Christmas! | |
Hello PE, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD| Talk 19:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC) |
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:R with possibilties. Since you had some involvement with the Template:R with possibilties redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 00:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi! Please could you stop adding portals to navboxes unless they match the topic of the navbox EXACTLY. This discussion may be of interest. -- wooden superman 11:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Last issue, I mentioned there would be a flood, and so, here it is...
We now have 4,620 portals.
And the race to pass 5,000 by year's end is on...
Can we make it?
The New Year, and the 5,001st portal, await.
( New portals are created with {{subst:Basic portal start page}}
or
{{subst:bpsp}}
)
After disappearing in mid-thread, Evad37 has returned from a longer than expected wikibreak.
Be sure to welcome him back.
User:FR30799386 is working on making {{ Portal image banner}} even better by enabling it to chop the top off an image as well as the bottom.
Many pictures aren't suitable for banners because they are too tall. Therefor, User:FR30799386 added cropping to this template, so that an editor could specify part of a picture to be used rather than the whole thing.
Work has begun on upgrading Wikipedia's flagship portals (those listed at the top of the Main page).
So far, Portal:Geography, Portal:History, and Portal:Technology have been revamped. Of course, you are welcome to improve them further.
Work continues on the other five. Feel free to join in on the fun.
In place of many missing portals, there is a redirect that leads to "the next best topic", such as a parent topic.
Most of these were created before we had the tools to easily create portals (they used to take 6 hours or more to create, because it was all done manually). Rather than leave a portal link red, some editors thought it was best that those titles led somewhere.
The subjects that have sufficient coverage should have their own portals rather than a redirect to some other subject.
Unfortunately, being blue like all other live links, redirects are harder to spot than redlinks.
To spot redirects easily, you can make them all appear green.
And I'll see you next issue.
Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 08:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Re these 2 RfDs. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 13:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to bring your attention to Talk:Trans-Canada Highway#Requested move 11 March 2018. Your grounds for moving Jungang Line to Jungang line is sufficient reason to move Trans-Canada Highway to Trans-Canada highway, that MOS on capitalisation is more important than the fact that "Trans-Canada Highway" is a proper name. 2Q ( talk) 19:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Something new - I've just been made aware that Move review is a thing... I think I'm going to open one (unless you're willing to un-close and undo the move), because I don't believe that the discussion should have been closed yet in favour of a move - at best there is no consensus yet... which generally means things should stay where they are until consensus to move away from the long-standing title happens... 2Q ( talk) 20:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Agree with the close.
But disagree with the policy! If you have time (it's longish) User:Andrewa/Let us abolish the whole concept of primary topic is now worth a read IMO, and still developing. Comments on its talk page more than welcome of course. Andrewa ( talk) 02:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
There are several errors in this entry. First my book on Romaine Brooks: A life (University of Wisconsin 2016) cited in the footnotes several times but missing from the bibliography. Secondly: Romaine is not buried with Romaine. She is actually buried in the family plot in Nice. RomaineB ( talk) 03:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for the History section in Children in the military. And your other good work in these areas. Gog the Mild ( talk) 12:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC) |
ACTRIAL:
Paid editing
Subject-specific notability guidelines
Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled
News
How do the three opposes have stronger arguments than the six supports? One of them makes no sense at all and another was treating RM like AfD. — Xezbeth ( talk) 17:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Paine, do you know the reasons behind this edit? I am not sure I understand what is happening here. There are several of these requests at WP:RM right now, and I agree that the changes appear to be uncontroversial at first glance, but since there are a lot of transfusions of these and the redirects were changed from protected templates to other templates with similar names, I'm not sure quite what's going on and was unwilling to put them through myself. Can you explain it to me? Also pinging User:Gonta-Kun. Dekimasu よ! 19:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Paine
Please could I ask you to look again at your close of the Physical exercise RM? While on the face of it the votes were split, there was a body of early votes which I think misunderstood the RM, thinking it was a primary topic debate (it's not, because Exercise already redirects here). After the relist, I put in a support vote, citing WP:COMMONANME and WP:CONCISE, and since then there hasn't been a substantial argument offered in opposition (discounting the vacuous "this is an exercise in futility"). In particular, I'd ask you to look at RedSlash's well argued support !vote, and the agreements that followed that. It looks like a fairly clear consensus to move to me. Thanks! — Amakuru ( talk) 09:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm struggling to understand why the template {{
Wikidata-redirect}}
has been added to numerous minor-planet redirects, such as
here, since the template's documentation was quite puzzling to me. Could you plz tell me the basic idea? Also, has {{Wikidata-redirect}} been applied consistently to all minor-planet redirects, or is there still a need for followup edits? Thx,
Rfassbind
– talk
15:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to the general result of the recent move discussion, but I am mystified by the part about a "definite general agreement" to reject the proposed move. Of the comments dealing with the original proposal, I count one "oppose", one "support", and one "agnostic". That doesn't look very definite to me. Care to elaborate? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 05:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:HUMOUR. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:HUMOUR redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
ACTRIAL:
Deletion tags
Backlog drive:
Editathons
Paid editing - new policy
Subject-specific notability guidelines
Not English
News
The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.
By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.
I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.
Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.
If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.
Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 08:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ ping}} me. Thank you. -TT
Sorry for the random year-long disappearance. Illness+wiki-stress+other real life issues conspired against me. Is there any specific redirect/redir-cat/redir-template work you feel could specifically use a helping hand at the moment, or is it still pretty much 'well there's about a hundred-thousand redirects to be templated and categorized for every user doing any redir work so it doesn't really matter where you start, it'll be a decade before we're done anyway?' :P AddWittyNameHere ( talk) 00:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— EBU R128—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mr X ☎️ 01:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Greetings. Would you consider doing the histmerge suggested by AjaxSmack for edits up to 03:33, 11 March 2013? This was the genesis of the article currently at Shinola, which had to be recreated piecemeal starting in 2015. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 20:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello Paine Ellsworth, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.
Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I saw that someone has added a few subcategories to {{ R to monotypic taxon}} much like the already-working spider/plant/fungi categories. Unfortunately, they're not actually in use because the template wasn't updated. I figure either the template should be updated or the categories deleted, what would you say is best here? AddWittyNameHere ( talk) 17:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with your reading of consensus, but I suppose I have no recourse? Yngvadottir ( talk) 20:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
You may want to register the username in your signature in the event that someone hijacks and/or registers that name themselves. Best beat vandalism/impersonation at the pass. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello Paine, I was looking at some rcats today, and noticed that among them we are using two different parameter names for the category. For example, {{
R from former name}} uses |main category=
whereas {{
R from short name}} uses |all category=
. Is there a reason for having the two parameters? If so, when is the one used as well as the other? Thank you.--
John Cline (
talk)
16:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
|main category=
, then the rcat can only be used in the main, article namespace, and should not be used in any other namespaces. If the parameter is |all category=
, then the rcat can be used in any namespace. There is more on this at
Template:Redirect template#Parameters. You'll remember that {{
Redirect template}} is the meta template used in all the rcats.
Paine Ellsworth
put'r there
18:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Paine, I appreciate that clarification. I did look at the documentation for {{Redirect template}}
; noticing the namespace segregation intended. The actual thrust of my concern was spawned by the Rcat's behavior associated with which category parameter was being used.
Notice at
Special:ExpandTemplates how {{R from short name}}
when transcluded as input and subsequently expanded results in the "preview" section showing the hidden "R"-category where tagged pages are grouped. Yet when {{R from former name}}
is expanded, no hidden categorization is shown. And, more importantly, when the "results" section is examined, the coding shows that no categorization for the rcat is rendering at all (for the given circumstances). If nothing else, it represents opportunities for maintenance categorization that are being missed, IMHO.
Before endeavoring those improvements, please tell me where the {{ Redirect template}} generates Category:Printworthy redirects and Category:Unprintworthy redirects? I can't parse their origin anywhere within the template's coding. Thank you again.-- John Cline ( talk) 23:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
... was this made? We (WikiProject University) have spent countless hours making sure that university navboxes are the colors of the school it's for. The color you chose was not even close to the school's colors providing false information. I'm just curious as to why. Corky 02:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The categories, Category:Redirects from sort names and Category:Redirects from ambiguous sort names are growing unwieldy. I plan to subdivide them in two ways for increased searchability, by creating a set of subcategories Category:Redirects from sort names, A, Category:Redirects from sort names, B, Category:Redirects from sort names, C, etc., and by creating a set of subcategories Category:Redirects from sort names by article title, A, Category:Redirects from sort names by article title, B, Category:Redirects from sort names by article title, C. Under this scheme, Adams, Chester (a redirect to the article Chester Adams) would fall into Category:Redirects from sort names, A and Category:Redirects from sort names by article title, C, and Johnson, Frank (a redirect to the disambiguation page Frank Johnson) would fall into Category:Redirects from ambiguous sort names, J and Category:Redirects from ambiguous sort names by article title, F. These would ideally be implemented with parameters at the respective templates, so that the first would be implemented by adding {{R from sort name||A|C}}, and the second would be implemented by adding {{R from ambiguous sort name||J|F}}. I can create the 104 new categories and assign a bot to sort the ~90,000 sort name redirects into these subcategories. Is this reasonable doable? bd2412 T 15:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence |
Just to briefly reiterate what I wrote over at Template talk:R from Twitter username, thank you for your diligence in mulling over an issue, finding a rather obscure but nifty template to resolve it, and then applying it. And I'm really sorry you removed all those DEFAULTSORT keys by hand; you should have something beforehand, I could have done it in <10 minutes with AWB. Cheers for going the extra three miles! — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 01:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC) |
I just encountered template {{
Wikidata redirect}}
in one of the minor-planet redirects, namely
(6721) Minamiawaji. When I transferred it to the correct, non-parenthetical version
6721 Minamiawaji, the template showed [(no entity)]
instead of the object's name. Unfortunately, my attempt to change the name to the non-parenthetical version on the corresponding
WikiData page 6721 Minamiawaji (bottom Wikipedia section) failed with the message: "Could not save due to an error.The save has failed. The link enwiki:List of minor planets: 6001–7000 is already used by item Q313483. You may remove it from Q313483 if it does not belong there or merge the items if they are about the exact same topic." Things don't make much sense to me; thought I let you know since you added said template to the redirect some months ago.
Rfassbind
– talk
23:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
|1=
parameter that can hold the Wikidata page number that follows the "Q" in the following manner:{{Rcat shell| {{Wikidata redirect|151393}} }}
|1=<number>
isn't needed; however, anytime a redirect needs to be attached to a Wikidata item, we can do so whether or not there is a "Wikidata item" link in the left margin. Hope this helps.
Paine Ellsworth
put'r there
02:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for my first, grumpy post above (it was already early in the morning). My bad. I think this this topic is important, as there are tens of thousands #R-to-list for minor planets. Can you point me into the right direction so I can learn more about wikidata's overall goal and the rules how to handle #R-to-lists?
I saw your . As far as I understood it you entered the parenthetical version as alias on the top section of WikiData page 6721 Minamiawaji and then you were able to make a change to the non-parenthetical version on the bottom of the page (correct?). This seems not to work for regular cases such as recently named minor plants or other #R-to-list such as for astronomer Plinio Antolini; WikiData page Plinio Antolini (Q530732). I'll better stop here with my feedback. I'm just worried that there is potentially a huge counterproductive misunderstanding between what I'm doing and wikidata. Be well as well. Rfassbind – talk 13:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
{{
Rcat}}
to these redirects, and I fully support it, but when a "wikidata redirect" is added to a secondary-#R (which I consider unhelpful in the first place), a "rcat"-tpl is distracting from the important message of "avoided double redirect" which displays the correct target (see
(6721) Minamiawaji.
Rfassbind
– talk
14:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Paine, I observed an interesting effect and thought I'd share it with you just in case you have an idea what might be causing this.
I haven't had time to investigate this further, but do you have any idea what might be causing this strange behaviour? Thanks. -- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 16:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
<includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{#invoke:redirect|isRedirect|{{TALKPAGENAME}}}}|yes|{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME:{{#invoke:redirect|main|{{TALKPAGENAME}}}}}}|{{PAGENAME:{{#invoke:redirect|main|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}}||[[Category:Unsynchronized ambiguous term talk page redirects]]}}}}</includeonly>
isRedirect
may have a similar effect as #ifexist. Regarding the flagging of hatnotes, I find that useful for finding misspellings in hatnotes. We shouldn't have hatnotes that say "misspelling" redirects here. So that problem, to me is a nice feature, not a bug. –
wbm1058 (
talk)
03:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
{{#invoke:redirect|main|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}
" makes a transclusion of itself. There isn't really any way to fix this; making
Module:Redirect use redirectTarget (as I had, incidently, done a few months ago in
Module:Redirect/sandbox) would still create a transclusion per the lua reference manual. The second effect in
EAGLE (program) is because
Module:Redirect hatnote checks if the target of the redirect linked is the same as the page itself (as it should be) and adds a tracking category if it is different. Checking the target adds the page as a transclusion (and the target is only checked if the page is a redirect).
Galobtter (
pingó mió)
05:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Your recent editing history at Apitherapy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog ( talk) 02:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Jytdog ( talk) 02:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.
There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: /info/en/?search=Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{ infobox ship}} is parsed).
If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.
Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.
You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.
There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.
Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.
It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.
The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.
A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.
We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.
Let's do this.
See ya at the WikiProject!
Sincerely, —
The Transhumanist
10:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
|
Hello Paine Ellsworth, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
You are currently all over my watchlist and it is making me laugh. Are you working from a list of your own, or something else? - Roxy, the dog. barcus 17:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
How on earth do you work out the article needs moving with eight people against seven for a move? Govvy ( talk) 22:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
...this could goto WP:AN.
I think this should go to an RfC as suggested, so whether it's reopened, overturned or whatever is not terribly important, except as input to that RfC. Interested as always in other views. Andrewa ( talk) 16:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of A.F.C. Bournemouth. 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. Govvy ( talk) 12:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
How did you weight the strength of the Support votes and the Oppose votes (taking in to account policies and guidelines such as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), or did you just do a headcount and conclude "No consensus" as the vote was evenly divided? Iffy★ Chat -- 11:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Copied to Move review
|
---|
|
To editor Born2cycle: With your agreement, I'd like to copy the above hatted discussion to MR so it won't be perceived as a discussion fork. Paine Ellsworth put'r there 21:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of In My Feelings (song). 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. Iffy★ Chat -- 15:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Since we talked about minor planets and Wikidata recently, I would like to ask you to give some insight into a discussion on my Wikidata user page. Another user suggested not to link redirects on Wikidata as only articles should be linked. Thx for your expertise. Rfassbind – talk 13:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello Paine Ellsworth, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing
|
---|
|
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Paine. Happy New Year. I am no longer a hard worker right here, and barely any worker on redirects. This concerns miscellaneous redirects. If you have retired from that effort, please give me a lead.
Last hour I corrected and expanded one R from person. Upon save ( [1] [old version]), I redd the warning :
and the familiar accompaniment:
So I inserted a pipe, closing the hatnote parameter and initiating a second parameter, if i understand correctly. See the redirect Sebastian Walker (publisher) [current]. Examining the two page footers, as displayed by this browser, I find no difference but the listing "Miscellaneous redirects" among Hidden categories. All the expected categories are populated in both cases regardless whether the R templates are included in the first parameter with the hatnote text, or as a separate second parameter. Also the hatnote is displayed identically, whether or not its text is terminated as a parameter value. Perhaps the template operation can be tweaked to ignore such, rather than display the warning and populate Miscellaneous redirects.
I'm not sure how to interpret the generalization, "This template is a learning tool ...". Is the template, used with parameter values that specify Redirect categories, still recommended? And the template redirect 'Redr' rather than the long name? -- P64 ( talk) 20:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
|1=
or |2=
, and the fact that the hatnote is applied by the named parameter, |h=
. The hatnote must end in a pipe to place the rcats in the first unnamed parameter. The warning text was added for two main reasons: 1) some experienced editors, who know how to apply rcats, were adding just the bare Rcat shell and leaving the categorization to those of us who monitor the
Miscellaneous redirects category, and 2) some editors wanted to apply the Rcat shell using a bot, which would have flooded the Misc. category and would have made it impossible to maintain.
|
Hello Paine Ellsworth, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
As of 21 October 2018 [update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
You edited Template:Quaternary (period) on 28 October 2018, for example by including the "collapse" parameter. I think this is causing an error "Template:collapse is not available for use in articles (see MOS:COLLAPSE)" in the Holocene article. Can you investigate this problem, please. GeoWriter ( talk) 17:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter • Subscription list on the English Wikipedia
Did you know?
Did you know that you can use the visual editor on a mobile device?
Tap on the pencil icon to start editing. The page will probably open in the wikitext editor.
You will see another pencil icon in the toolbar. Tap on that pencil icon to the switch between visual editing and wikitext editing.
Remember to publish your changes when you're done.
You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.
Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has wrapped up most of their work on the 2017 wikitext editor and the visual diff tool. The team has begun investigating the needs of editors who use mobile devices. Their work board is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are fixing bugs and improving mobile editing.
— Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 17:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Anyone can edit. Since you had some involvement with the Anyone can edit redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. |
Hello Paine Ellsworth,
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Paine Ellsworth. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | |
Three years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Care for a cup of tea, after fixing all those redirects on religion topics? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC) |
There are now 4,180 portals.
Will we break 5,000 by the end of the year?
I know we can. But, that is up to you!
( New portals are created with {{subst:Basic portal start page}}
or
{{subst:bpsp}}
)
Hello everyone! Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice (if it's occurring in your area of the world), and thanks for your work in maintaining, improving, and expanding portals. Cheers, — The Transhumanist 06:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
The following portals have been created since the last issue:
Keep 'em coming!
By the way, the above list was generated using this Petscan query. It can be easily modified by changing the date. The data page (under the Output tab) also has options for receiving the data in CSV or tabbed format, which some operating systems automatically load into a spreadsheet program for ease of use, such as copying and pasting the desired column (like page names).
We'll keep it short this issue.
Expect a flood next time. Or the one after that.
Cheerio, — The Transhumanist 07:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Paine,
I noticed you signed up as a participant at WP:WPPORT. I'm glad you did.
A great deal has happened since the RfC last spring. In case you'd like to catch up with the newsletter, the archives can be found at WP:WPPORTNA.
We dream up new features at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Design#Discussions about possible cool new features.
The main portal model is contained in {{ bpsp}}, and is packed with templates.
You can find other useful templates listed on the {{ Portal templates navbox}}.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.
Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 11:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
P.S.: I'll be contacting you again soon, about AWB.
Nice. I see that you are way up on
WP:NOE, so I don't have to be gentle.
Okay, here's the situation: we've added thousands of new portals. Many of those are orphaned. They need links leading to them.
There are 3 main links that we have been concentrating on, that can be placed using AWB:
For each portal...
{{Portal|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}
. I've been removing other portal boxes, because they are off-topic for the lead section of a category page.| below =
section, using * {{icon|Portal}} [[Portal:{{subst:PAGENAME}}|Portal]]
. If there is no | below =
, add it.* {{Portal inline|size=tiny|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}
in the See also section of the corresponding (like-named) root article. If there is no See also section, make one. Generally remove other portal links unless they are particularly on-topic. If there are columns, the link needs to go in there.These are somewhat advanced AWB tasks, because you'll hit contingencies as you go along which will require that you create additional regexes. Such cases tend to repeat, so the task gets faster as you go along.
You'll also be using the skipping features a lot, most likely, for pages that do not apply. Like templates that are not corresponding navboxes (there's competition for the titles), soft category redirects, and so on.
For each of these tasks, to get the starting list takes a bit of list judo...
For example, for placing the portal box on like-named categories...
You get a list of All portals, then convert that to a list of categories in a sandbox by swapping out the prefix, and pull the resulting blue links off the sandbox into AWB.
You can then use AWB's preparse feature to skip existing portal box placements, using AWB's %%title%% magic word to avoid matching just any portal box.
If you have a second computer, it helps to use that to check the work (via contribs and browser tabs). Or another window. A user can be logged in to WP multiple times.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.
Portals are lucky that you came along. I look forward to working with you.
Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 01:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for sorting the OR in Robert Cochrane to its Talk Page. A friendly cookie to a helpful & kindly Wikipedian! Manytexts ( talk) 23:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC) |
"I close RMs all the time and nominators do NOT also "support", or if they do, their !vote is removed
" - after removing said "!vote" twice, the second time from a closed discussion, do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? (btw- I take it there aren't any admin backlogs, anywhere, right now...) -
wolf
20:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that you recently removed the Too much detail tag in the ancestry section of this article. I agree that the tag is inappropriate. There's currently a discussion on the article's talk page about this. It'd be super if you could participate over there. This edit war has been going on for some time (on various pages) and it would be great to have a substantive discussion and actually reach consensus on this sort of thing. Best, Flyte35 ( talk) 22:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello Paine Ellsworth,
This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
See also the list of top 100 reviewers.
The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Christmas! | |
Hello PE, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD| Talk 19:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC) |
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:R with possibilties. Since you had some involvement with the Template:R with possibilties redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 00:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi! Please could you stop adding portals to navboxes unless they match the topic of the navbox EXACTLY. This discussion may be of interest. -- wooden superman 11:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Last issue, I mentioned there would be a flood, and so, here it is...
We now have 4,620 portals.
And the race to pass 5,000 by year's end is on...
Can we make it?
The New Year, and the 5,001st portal, await.
( New portals are created with {{subst:Basic portal start page}}
or
{{subst:bpsp}}
)
After disappearing in mid-thread, Evad37 has returned from a longer than expected wikibreak.
Be sure to welcome him back.
User:FR30799386 is working on making {{ Portal image banner}} even better by enabling it to chop the top off an image as well as the bottom.
Many pictures aren't suitable for banners because they are too tall. Therefor, User:FR30799386 added cropping to this template, so that an editor could specify part of a picture to be used rather than the whole thing.
Work has begun on upgrading Wikipedia's flagship portals (those listed at the top of the Main page).
So far, Portal:Geography, Portal:History, and Portal:Technology have been revamped. Of course, you are welcome to improve them further.
Work continues on the other five. Feel free to join in on the fun.
In place of many missing portals, there is a redirect that leads to "the next best topic", such as a parent topic.
Most of these were created before we had the tools to easily create portals (they used to take 6 hours or more to create, because it was all done manually). Rather than leave a portal link red, some editors thought it was best that those titles led somewhere.
The subjects that have sufficient coverage should have their own portals rather than a redirect to some other subject.
Unfortunately, being blue like all other live links, redirects are harder to spot than redlinks.
To spot redirects easily, you can make them all appear green.
And I'll see you next issue.
Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 08:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |