Paine Ellsworth
 |  |
 | 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 |  |
'to help us keep our minds sharp!'
|
|
Newly registered?
Discussions and notifications...collapsed
| ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #029, 13 Feb 2019Where we are at:
The Ref desks survived the proposal to shut them downYou might be familiar with the Ref desks, by their link on every new portal. They are a place you can go to ask volunteers almost any knowledge-related question, and have been a feature of Wikipedia since August of 2005 (or perhaps earlier). They were linked to from portals in an effort to improve their visibility, and to provide a bridge from the encyclopedia proper to project space (the Wikipedia community). Well, somebody proposed that we get rid of them, and the community decided that that was not going to happen. Thank you for defending the Ref desks! Here's a link to the dramatic discussion: The cleanup after sockpuppet Emoteplump continues...The wake of disruption left by Emoteplump and the admins who reverted many (but not all) of his/her edits is still undergoing cleanup. We could use all the help we can get on this task... Almost all of the speedy deleted portals have been rebuilt from scratch. For the portals he/she restarted (many of which were done mistakenly, overwriting restarts and further development that had already been done), and/or tagged as the maintainer, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Emoteplump&oldid=881568794#Additional_Portals_under_my_watch 10,000 portals, here we come...We're at 5,705 portals and counting. New portals since issue #28
Prior to 2018, for the previous 14 years, portal creation was at about 80 portals per year on average. We did over 3 times that in just the past 9 days. At this rate, we'll hit the 10,000 portal mark in 5 months. But, I'm sure we can do it sooner than that. What's next for portal pages?There are 5 drives for portal development:
Let's take a closer look at these... 1: Creating new portalsPortal creation, for subjects that happen to have the necessary support structures already in place, is down to about a minute per portal. The creation part, which is automated, takes about 10 seconds. The other 50 seconds is taken up by manual activities, such as finding candidate subjects, inspecting generated portals, and selecting the portal creation template to be used according to the resources available. Tools are under development to automate these activities as much as possible, to pare portal creation time down even more. Ten seconds each is the goal. Eventually, we are going to run out of navigation templates to base portals off of. Though there are still thousands to go. But, when they do run out, we'll need an easy way to create more. A nav footer creation script. Meanwhile, other resources are being explored and developed, such as categories, and methods to harvest the links they contain. 2: Expanding existing portalsThe portal collection is growing, not only by the addition of new portals, but by further developing the ones we already have, by...
More features will be added as we dream them up and design them. So, don't be shy, make a wish. 3: Converting old portalsBy far the hardest and most time-consuming task we have been working on is updating the old portals, the very reason we revamped this WikiProject in the first place. There are two approaches here:
4: Linking to new portalsOr "portal deorphanization"... Dreamy Jazz Bot is purring along. And a tool in the form of a script is under development for linking to portals at the time they are created, or shortly thereafter. 5...See below... New WikiProject for the post-saved-portal phase of operations...Saved portals, are portals with a saved page. What is the next stage in the evolutionary progression? Quantum portals. What are quantum portals? Portals that come into existence when you click on the portal button, and which disappear when you leave the page. Or, as Pbsouthwood put it:
Introducing... Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals (see it's talk page). Keep on keepin' on...'til next time, — The Transhumanist 10:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Nomination for deletion of Template:NSFWTemplate:NSFW has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
LIght Year (Isakov song) listed at Redirects for discussionAn editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect LIght Year (Isakov song). Since you had some involvement with the LIght Year (Isakov song) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 February 2019
Notice
Please don't comment out Template:Requested move/datedbecause my bot isn't smart enough to notice that. RMCD bot stupidly thought that template was still being transcluded. It took me over two months to notice that my bot was reporting an odd message on its console: "Centrally-hosted discussion on Talk:2018 New York Attorney General election." Of course, on checking that page I immediately saw that this was a spurious message as this was just a normal, not a centrally-hosted discussion, which appeared to have been closed in late December. After spending maybe 30 minutes on a wild goose chase looking for what recent code or template change I made recently triggered this unexpected side effect, I looked at the wikitext source of Talk:2018 New York Attorney General election and only then I immediately saw the problem. This edit fixed it, and shortly after I made that edit the bot removed the stale notice from the article. Just like Farmers Insurance's university professor, I know a thing or two because I've seen a thing or two. So next time this happens, I'll know enough to look out for it. Too much trouble to try to code a patch to make my bot as smart as me. Low priority because it's such a rare "accident". Since you've volunteered to fix malformed requested moves, which I appreciate, I'll add you to my "team of assistants" who do this when I'm busy working on other stuff besides monitoring RM, and point you to this guidance I gave to another one of my assistants. Thanks for helping out at RM. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Ready brideI'm ready bride of christ Christysgotit (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.17Hello Paine Ellsworth,
Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828 Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #030, 17 Mar 2019Previous issue:
This issue:
The collection of portals has shrunkAll Portals closed at WP:MfD during 2019 Grouped Nominations total 127 Portals:
Individual Nominations:
Related WikiProject: (Attribution: Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Portal MfD Results) WikiProject Quantum portalsThis was a spin-off from WikiProject Portals, for the purpose of developing zero-page portals (portals generated on-the-screen at the push of a button, with no stored pages). It has been merged back into WikiProject Portals. In the MfD the vote was "demote". See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals. Hiatus on mass creation of PortalsAt WP:VPR, mass creation of Portals using semi-automated tools has been put on hold until clearer community consensus is established. See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Hiatus on mass creation of Portals. The Transhumanist banned from creating new portals for 3 monthsSee Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal 1: Interim Topic-Ban on New Portals.
Until next issue...Keep on keepin' on. — The Transhumanist 03:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Getting a change throughHi Paine! I'm very frustrated because I'm trying to do the right thing but I'm making no progress. Some random user unilaterally changes the name of the Sinhala language article and no-one bats an eyelid. Had it been discussed, it would have been rejected as "no consensus", the same as my request to change it back. I've shown plenty of evidence that "Sinhala" is overwhelmingly preferred but hasn't totally displaced Sinhalese, but it appears to me (as in this in entirely my opinion) that ignorant people who have already make up their minds are voting against it, so undoing an incorrect change is impossible. The last voter basically said "languages and people have to have the same name in English". This is demonstrably not true, but their vote to oppose counts anyway. The same goes for everyone else who voted without commenting or providing evidence for their opinions, e.g. "Sinhalese is clearly the preferred name" without sourcing their statement. How can I get a change request based on facts instead of opinions? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a repository of the truth? Also, how long do you recommend before trying again? Danielklein (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 March 2019
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 15:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
CommentedArticle moveHello Paine Ellsworth. This article [1] was suddenly moved without any form for discussion, could you please revert it back to its original name? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
ChairmanHi Paine, At the Chairman MRV you wrote: "It appears that no amount of further discussion would have resulted in any general agreement..." Are you aware that 2/3rds supported a title other than the current title (Chairman) in the primary survey, and another 2/3rds preferred Chairperson over Chairman in the secondary survey, and the latest participations were all moving it even more in that direction? How much agreement does there have to be to result in "any general agreement"? There seems to be much more agreement in that RM discussion than I've seen in many other RMs in which consensus was found. So I was hoping you'd reconsider your assessment of that close, or at least explain it further. Thanks! --В²C ☎ 19:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Template include size exceededWas there a recent change that caused this to start happening in one of my sandboxes, and also on my work page? Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 03:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Template include size exceeded The Signpost: 30 April 2019
Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #031, 01 May 2019Back to the drawing boardImplementation of the new portal design has been culled back almost completely, and the cull is still ongoing. The cull has also affected portals that existed before the development of the automated design. Some of the reasons for the purge are:
Most of the deletions have been made without prejudice to recreation of curated portals, so that approval does not need to be sought at Deletion Review in those cases. In addition to new portals being deleted, most of the portals that were converted to an automated design have been reverted. Which puts us back to portals with manually selected content, that need to be maintained by hand, for the most part, for the time being, and back facing some of the same problems we had when we were at this crossroads before:
These and other concepts require further discussion. See you at WT:POG. However, after the purge/reversion is completed, some of the single-page portals might be left, due to having acceptable characteristics (their design varied some). If so, then those could possibly be used as a model to convert and/or build more, after the discussions on portal creation and design guidelines have reached a community consensus on what is and is not acceptable for a portal. See you at WT:POG. CurationA major theme in the deletion discussions was the need for portals to be curated, that is, each one having a dedicated maintainer. There are currently around 100 curated portals. Based on the predominant reasoning at MfD, it seems likely that all the other portals may be subject to deletion. See you at WT:POG. TrafficAn observation and argument that arose again and again during the WP:ENDPORTALS RfC and the ongoing deletion drive of {{bpsp}} default portals, was that portals simply do not get much traffic. Typically, they get a tiny fraction of what the corresponding like-titled articles get. And while this isn't generally considered a good rationale for creation or deletion of articles, portals are not articles, and portal critics insist that traffic is a key factor in the utility of portals. The implication is that portals won't be seen much, so wouldn't it be better to develop pages that are? And since such development isn't limited to editing, almost anything is possible. If we can't bring readers to portals, we could bring portal features, or even better features, to the readers (i.e., to articles)... Some potential future directions of developmentQuantum portals?An approach that has received some brainstorming is "quantum portals", meaning portals generated on-the-fly and presented directly on the view screen without any saved portal pages. This could be done by script or as a MediaWiki program feature, but would initially be done by script. The main benefits of this is that it would be opt-in (only those who wanted it would install it), and the resultant generated pages wouldn't be saved, so that there wouldn't be anything to maintain except the script itself. Non-portal integrated componentsAnother approach would be to focus on implementing specific features independently, and provide them somewhere highly visible in a non-portal presentation context (that is, on a page that wasn't a portal that has lots of traffic, i.e., articles). Such as inserted directly into an article's HTML, as a pop-up there, or as a temporary page. There are scripts that use these approaches (providing unrelated features), and so these approaches have been proven to be feasible. What kind of features could this be done with? The various components of the automated portal design are transcluded excerpts, news, did you know, image slideshows, excerpt slideshows, and so on. Some of the features, such as navigation footers and links to sister projects are already included on article pages. And some already have interface counterparts (such as image slideshows). Some of the rest may be able to be integrated directly via script, but may need further development before they are perfected. Fortunately, scripts are used on an opt-in basis, and therefore wouldn't affect readers-in-general and editors-at-large during the development process (except for those who wanted to be beta testers and installed the scripts). The development of such scripts falls under the scope of the Javascript-WikiProject/Userscript-department, and will likely be listed on Wikipedia:User scripts/List when completed enough for beta-testing. Be sure to watchlist that page. Where would that leave curated portals?Being curated. At least for the time being. New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. For example, the pop-up feature of MediaWiki provides much the same functionality as excerpts in portals already, and there is also a slideshow feature to view all the images on the current page (just click on any image, and that activates the slideshow). Future features could also overlap portal features, until there is nothing that portals provide that isn't provided elsewhere or as part of Wikipedia's interface. But, that may be a ways off. Perhaps months or years. It depends on how rapidly programmers develop them. Keep on keepin' onThe features of Wikipedia and its articles will continue to evolve, even if Portals go by the wayside. Most, if not all of portals' functionality, or functions very similar, will likely be made available in some form or other. And who knows what else? No worries. Until next issue... — The Transhumanist 00:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Template doc subpagesHi. Do templates like {{Lexicology}} or {{Lexicography}} really need to have their documentation be on a separate subpage? My impression is that separate subpages are needed for protected templates (to keep the documentation editable) or for templates with intricate syntax (so that editors don't accidentally mess them up while fiddling with the doc). Templates like these, on the other hand, aren't likely to ever get protected, and they're pretty straightforward navboxes that it's difficult to imagine anyone messing up, nevermind the low likelihood of anyone needing to edit the documentation. Don't the disadvantages of having separate doc subpages, like the danger of getting left behind after a move or the lower number of watchers leading to higher risk of vandalism remaining undetected, start outweighing any pros? – Uanfala (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of Diabetes (disambiguation) for deletionThe article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diabetes (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JFW | T@lk 11:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC) Move on Meaningful voteI wonder why you close the RM as moved? As we can see there are numerous users oppose to it. --B dash (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Move review for Parliamentary votes on BrexitAn editor has asked for a Move review of Parliamentary votes on Brexit. 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. B dash (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC) NPR Newsletter No.18Hello Paine Ellsworth,
Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250 Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost. Why leave a stale copy of a move request notice?Re:[2] I see that you are leaving a copy of the notice box for a closed move request, but I still fail to understand your motivation. Why attract the eyes of readers on a closed discussion, which is already marked in blue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFG (talk • contribs) 14:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 May 2019
|
Wikilawyering
Hi, this is just to make it clear that I do not see your own involvement in the Boeing 737 MAX/Max spat as wikilawyering. The essay does say that "A common mistake of misguided advocacy is when editors appoint themselves mediators and proceed with judging the sides by telling others whether they are right or wrong", which you might be seen to have fallen for, but I do not see that as deliberate. I should also make it clear that I have no opinion on which side has the better case in the way that you do. Mine is only that neither case is hopeless. However the same editor or bunch of editors launching the latest review after being put down four times already does smack to me of deliberately looking to play the system and I stand by my perjorative assessment of their persistence in the face of repeated failure to establish consensus. They are the ones who are becoming disruptive, that is the only reason I felt pushed to make any comment. I trust that we can agree to differ and to move on without further disrupting the ongoing review. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, Steelpillow, for coming to my talk page! At MRV we are required mainly to assess the close itself, as you know. Sometimes in order to do that we have to assess the validity of the args on both sides. In this case, most of the support args are policy- and guideline-based, while nearly all of the oppose args are not. The editor who requested the page moves and the MRV is within what community consensus has evaluated as their right to try and garner consensus. I have no problem with agreeing to disagree. Your argument at MRV is well-put, well-said; however, it is also completely wrong, as if you didn't even read the RM discussion. Please do so and try again. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 16:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Regarding your revert
I did post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect#R to anchor and R to section before changing it and saw no response in 3 days so went ahead and changed it. I do not agree with your assessment that anchor redirects are unprintworhty by default. Module:Episode list uses by default anchor redirects and their episode names are indeed worthy. This is the same exact situation as R to section and R to list. If any computer generated medadata uses this, then those should change to use a different template, not the other way around. If you insist on preventing this change (as we both know that no one but us will ever respond to a discussion there), let me know and I'll just create a fork template. --Gonnym (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Well, it was not my assessment but that of the 1.0 team long ago. Please see my response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect. And note that I have a lot of respect for you and your contributions. The revert was just to correct a major removal of thousands of anchor redirects from Category:Unprintworthy redirects. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 17:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Close notes – 737 Max
—Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 19:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
There are many faulty assumptions repeated in the move discussions. I took the time to write a note to each argument that I debate. See the " Note:" lines at User:Aron_Manning/737_Max_RM. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 05:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
You have great experience in move requests. What do you suggest after a 1-year-old user closed the review with the same error - a vote count -, then tried to fix their mistake by rewriting the close summary with a complete nonsense?
See the discussion at their talk page. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 16:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, Aron M🍂, for bringing this to my talk page. I've overturned the MRV closure and added a response to you there. Thanks again and best to you! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 17:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
To editor Paine Ellsworth: Hello again! I've reworded the summary to focus on the close, as required by WP:MRV. Feel free to review: User:Aron_Manning/737_Max_RM#Requested_move_25_May_2019
There are many ambiguous arguments in the RM, therefore the categorization is also ambiguous. Opposers can argue the evaluation of individual arguments, if they disagree, on the associated talk page. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 19:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi can you move page
Hi its been more than a week now can you please move the page Tejasswi Prakash Wayangankar to Tejasswi Prakash as it was nominated. Some user moved it to a wrong title when it was not nominated for that name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.192.225 (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, after researching, I have granted the request and renamed the article. Thank you for coming to my talk page! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 19:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
another move
Hi User: Paine Ellsworth could you please move Lies of the Heart to Doli Armaano Ki it’s been a week now and this is the common name u can search it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.192.139 (talk) 08:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)