User talk: Paine Ellsworth
Best of everything to you and yours! and...
Spread the Good!
 | Gentle reminder... this is my talk page, where you and I may get to know each other better. Thank you for coming here, and thanks beyond words for your interest in and your contributions to this encyclopedia project! Offline and other online interests sometimes keep me very busy, and that's when I'm slow to respond to echo noties, my talk page and emails. Do me a favor, please forgive me, and again, thank you for being here! Paine Ellsworth |  |
The Closer:
 non-admin reveal |
|---|
I shall likely remain a non-admin doing the best I can to enjoy discussions with other editors. I sometimes participate, sometimes help with disagreements and sometimes close discussions when needed. I am no stranger to closing contentious discussions about controversial subjects. I sometimes close the easy talks, too, because if it's in the backlog, then it's fair game!
|
'to help us keep our minds sharp!'
|
|
|
Recently registered?
[edit]
Learn quickly how editors journey thru this awe-inspiring reference work! (and the project that builds it!)
Older discussions and notifications... → click the section title in the Table of Contents (ToC) above, or click [show] to see all the discussions →
| ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message[edit] Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add Precious anniversary[edit]
--Gerda Arendt (2talk) 11:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
"Wikipedia:Redirect assimilation" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]
"WP:ASSIMILATION" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]
Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/Life Speaks to Me[edit]
Administrators' newsletter – December 2024[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024). 
Guild of Copy Editors December 2024 Newsletter[edit]
Message sent by Baffle_gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC). Speedy deletion nomination of Template:World War II/doc[edit] A tag has been placed on Template:World War II/doc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason: Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time. 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC) The Signpost: 12 December 2024[edit]
New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive[edit]
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Twenty20 leagues/doc[edit]A tag has been placed on Template:Twenty20 leagues/doc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time. 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | ||||||||||
Glossary entry 'Malplaced'
[edit]Hi, Paine. Thanks for your additions to the Wikipedia:Glossary. In the entry for WP:G#malplaced disambiguation page (added in rev. 1227250312), clicking the [[#base name|Foo]] link landed me at base name, which seemed surprising. Did you mean to add nowiki's around it? Either way, I am not sure I understand the relevance of that link; perhaps you could clarify the entry? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, Mathglot, and welcome! The base name link is there to illustrate that the example title, "Foo", is a "base name" that redirects to a page where the base name is qualified with " (disambiguation)". The link was added to help editors, but if something should be done to make the text more clear, then please feel free to do so. Perhaps something like:
P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)When an ambiguous [[#base name|base name]] page title, such as "Foo", redirects to a page named "Foo (disambiguation)", the Foo page is said to be "malplaced". In this case, Foo (disambiguation) should be moved to the Foo title. See Wikipedia:Malplaced disambiguation pages.
- To editor Mathglot: the text in the glossary for this entry has been clarified. I hope it is improved over its previous version. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 03:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is to some, but I find it confusing. For example, I see base name page title (1st sentence), and a Foo title (2nd); is this about pages that do, or don't have parenthetical disambiguation? If that is the case, I would just say that. If it's about something else, then what? Mathglot (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- To editor Mathglot: this is good, because we both want it to be clear for other editors. We can work on it here, and feel free to clarify any part of it. If I understand you correctly, the confusing part is my trying to equate "base name" with the Foo title but not doing so quite well enough. I do think it's important to use the "base name" term, because it's sometimes used when editors discuss dab pages and primary topics. Maybe the following is better?
P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 04:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)When an ambiguous base name page title, such as "Foo", is a redirect to a target page titled "Foo (disambiguation)", there is no primary topic "Foo", and the Foo page is "malplaced". In this case, the Foo (disambiguation) page should be moved to the base name page title, Foo. See Wikipedia:Malplaced disambiguation pages.
- To me, that seems identical to this:
When an ambiguous page title, such as "Foo", is a redirect to a target page titled "Foo (disambiguation)", there is no primary topic "Foo", and the Foo page is "malplaced".
- If it is identical, then base name is superfluous or meaningless (and it can't be the second); if they are not identical, in what way does this sentence differ from the previous one? If find the latter sentence understandable, and don't know what base name is contributing to the definition. But since, as you say, it appears to be specialized vocabulary used in discussions about disambiguation, maybe you should just leave it if it's meaningful to others, and it doesn't matter if I understand it or not. Mathglot (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- To editor Mathglot: I'm afraid I don't see "base name" as "superfluous or meaningless" or unnecessary. If it were those things, then it would not be in the glossary in the first place. It's an important enough term to be in the glossary, and it applies to "Foo" in the example, because "Foo" is a base name title. While it is unfortunate that you are confused by this usage, I think that we should find a way to use the term "base name" in this description and at the same time be sensitive to the fact that there are quite possibly others who would also be confused for the same reason. What exactly and precisely is confusing about calling a base name title, such as "Foo", exactly what it is – a "base name" title? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 12:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't doubt it has meaning and deserves a place in the glossary, I just don't see it in this case. However, the glossary doesn't need to be tailor-made to cater to my misunderstandings, and if it makes sense to you and most people, then that is good enough and it should remain, and I am content to just let this go. Thanks for taking the time to address my questions about it. Mathglot (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's my pleasure and thank you for clarifying! This entry is about malplaced dab pages. It is about how a non-base name title, such as "Foo (disambiguation)", should be moved to its base name if the base name redirects to the non-base name. I regret if, while it seems clear as a bell to me, it results in any amount of misunderstanding. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't doubt it has meaning and deserves a place in the glossary, I just don't see it in this case. However, the glossary doesn't need to be tailor-made to cater to my misunderstandings, and if it makes sense to you and most people, then that is good enough and it should remain, and I am content to just let this go. Thanks for taking the time to address my questions about it. Mathglot (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- To editor Mathglot: I'm afraid I don't see "base name" as "superfluous or meaningless" or unnecessary. If it were those things, then it would not be in the glossary in the first place. It's an important enough term to be in the glossary, and it applies to "Foo" in the example, because "Foo" is a base name title. While it is unfortunate that you are confused by this usage, I think that we should find a way to use the term "base name" in this description and at the same time be sensitive to the fact that there are quite possibly others who would also be confused for the same reason. What exactly and precisely is confusing about calling a base name title, such as "Foo", exactly what it is – a "base name" title? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 12:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is to some, but I find it confusing. For example, I see base name page title (1st sentence), and a Foo title (2nd); is this about pages that do, or don't have parenthetical disambiguation? If that is the case, I would just say that. If it's about something else, then what? Mathglot (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Christmas/doc
[edit]A tag has been placed on Template:Christmas/doc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
WP:T5. Template changed to use better Template:Navbox documentation.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.
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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Post move review summary
[edit]Friend Andrewa, perhaps when you are able to find the time, the following has given me pause. I am now perplexed by the whole NAMECHANGES policy situation, and I will not attempt to close another similar RM until I can figure this out. Please help when you can. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Distressing indeed. A blatant and unprovoked personal attack didn't help I am sure. Looking at it... may take a little while as I am frantic IRL and it's now quite involved. Wikipedia is not perfect. Andrewa (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for that! Please, take your time. The
problemschallenges aren't going anywhere. I never seek perfection, just excellence. Thanks again, my friend! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for that! Please, take your time. The
- Post move review summary thoughts about Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July#Fairfield Metro station: Fairfield Metro station (RM) – overturned
- I am compelled to wonder about how to go forward. What happened here is that a local consensus at RM was not sufficient to override the WP:NAMECHANGES article title policy, and yet another local consensus at MRV did override that policy and had the article moved to the new "official" name before it has become the WP:COMMONNAME as prescribed by the NAMECHANGES section of the policy. Was I not using "common sense", as at least one editor at MRV suggested? Well, that's done and in the past, so my question now must be: how should we go forward?
- Should we ignore the plural "sources" that the NAMECHANGES policy requires? That policy requires "sources" that use the new name "routinely". When I closed that move request, there had been no – zero – independent sources given that used the new name routinely. There were several primary sources that noted the name change, and there were some secondary sources before the name change that announced there would be an expected name change, but there were no independent, secondary sources found after the name change that used the new name routinely. After I closed the RM, an editor was able to produce one independent source, patch.com, published the same day, 1 July 2024, that I closed the RM, that used the new name routinely. One independent, secondary source. To date, that is the only independent source that uses the new name routinely. Our policy says "sources". I've run into editors who think there should be 10 or 12 good, independent, secondary sources that use the new name routinely before that new name becomes the common name. In the past, I've been happy with 3 or 4 of those sources. Now I just don't know. The policy isn't specific as to the number of those sources needed, it just says "sources" – plural, more than one. Yet in this case, a page was moved to a new, official name based upon only one independent source that used the new name routinely.
- I should also note my respect for WP:IAR, but I've always thought that to ignore a policy or guideline, and the community agreements that built them, requires very good reason. Nobody, not in the RM nor in the MRV, nobody gave a good reason to ignore the NAMECHANGES article title policy. Yet they did ignore it. So...
- I don't know how we should go forward with move requests that have proposed a title change to a new, official name when there are no independent sources, or only one source, that uses the new name routinely, when there should be at the very least two "sources" as prescribed by the NAMECHANGES article title policy. Can anyone see this dilemma clearly and give me guidance as to how we should go forward?
- After rereading [this other policy] about primary and secondary sources, maybe I was being too restrictive about using specifically secondary sources that used the new name routinely? I'm still at a loss to understand how to go forward. We are still supposed to give "due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions",[1] aren't we?
- One last thought... there is no way I would take this to the next level that would follow a MRV decision with which I disagree. Not my style. Worst comes to worst, I will just refrain from closing this type of RM and hope that whoever does close them will do a better job than I have done. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 December 2024
[edit]- From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting?
- Recent research: "Wikipedia editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality
- Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols
- Traffic report: Was a long and dark December