User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Template: Distinguish

I noticed that you changed the wording. However, it is stated in the close of the TfD that the template be left as-is. Would you please change the wording back first and start discussion later on?Forbidden User (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Forbidden User – Before I give you an answer, perhaps there are some things we can both consider together? I noted that you and I were of one mind during the Tfd; we both felt the template should be kept and we both saw the undesirable outcome of merging {{Distinguish}} with {{Distinguish2}}. Anyone who actually reads the documentation can see that the two templates have different functions, so we both realized that the continuing need for the Distinguish template is very real.

Next, please also take under consideration that I have had the improvement of these templates, Distinguish, Distinguish2, {{Redirect-distinguish}} and {{Redirect-distinguish2}}, on my to-do list for quite a while. This is not because I personally feel that there is something wrong with the word "confused"; it is only because the names of the templates were not consistent with their content. When I first encountered template Distinguish, my beginning thought was 'Why doesn't the template use its name in its content?' Yes, I was rather lax in making a change, and my only excuse is that other areas of Wikipedia pulled me away from these templates. The Tfd pulled me back, and I felt that it was "high time" for a positive improvement in them.

Lastly, the Distinguish template is a highly visible and much used template, so when any modification is made there are "dominoes falling" for quite some time. That is to say that such changes can prove to be quite a drain on Wikipedia's server as it works to make the changes to each and every page that transcludes the template. Multiply that effect times at least 2 when the other 3 templates are also modified.

May I ask, is there another wording that you would like to have considered? Do you strongly object to the wording that is now used in the template? Under any other circumstances I would be glad to return the templates to status quo pending the outcome of an RfC; however, my last consideration above gives me pause. If the present wording is not too objectionable to you, then perhaps it might be better to open an RfC to see if other editors want a different wording or if they are okay with the present wording.

So I would certainly attend an RfC if you begin one, and if a consensus arises to change the wording back to status quo, then I will be both compelled and happy to oblige. Thank you for coming to my talk page to discuss this and also for caring about this situation and about Wikipedia. – Paine  09:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, I myself do not hate the current wording that much. I put that request because it is stated in the TfD outcome that the template be kept as-is. The only thing I can't accept is change-before-discussion. Of course we should be bold, but not when a consensus against it has just been reached. Opening a TfD regarding the wording to gain the required consensus for the change is prerequisite to me, and that is why I wish to have it reverted first to respect consensus.

I can totally understand why you made the change (as I saw people talking about the BRD cycle, which you certainly follow), and I appreciate your courtesy and civility when facing my request. However, your change was made before the TfD close, whose outcome is against your change. If we follow the BRD cycle, then in discussion part the change is rejected, sadly. Perhaps WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY or WP:IAR applies here, but that should not be judged by only a few editors. I'm not putting on the request based on procedural error, there is none - you made the edit before discussion. I hope you may consider these as well. I will respect it if you reject the request - it's up to you.Forbidden User (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Oops, it looks like someone has had it done. You should raise a TfD - though probably some time later. Don't be discouraged!Forbidden User (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouragement, Forbidden User! Rather than clutter up articles with yet another Tfd notice, I would prefer to perhaps get fresh opinions from less-involved editors by use of the RfC process. So I've opened a request here. Joys! – Paine  17:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

PS. I should also note that, after you opened the edit request and as the one who had made the wording mod, I felt that by that time I was too involved to just come right out with a Not done. That is why I only left a comment to give another, "non-involved" template editor the decision to make the edit or not. PS added by – Paine 

It should also be noted just fyi that, when I made the change I was not being bold, I was just being an editor who had this change on my to-do list for a long time. I disagree that there was consensus against the wording change; I am very careful about such things. As Codename Lisa pointed out, the Tfd was about deleting Template:Distinguish, not about changing its content, so such side discussions should not be counted as "consensus" or "non-consensus". There was no "official" consensus for or against the wording modification.

Also, I did not make the change before the Tfd closed. The admin had closed the Tfd with the result stated as decision pending. So at the time I made the change, the Tfd was officially closed. The closing admin then changed the closing result to keep template, and at the end of the new closing statement made the further additional comment for the template to remain "as-is". This was a rather non-standard closure on the admin's part, but no big deal. It's just that the second closing statement came after I had modified the template's wording, so the "as-is" part had not yet been made. For confirmation of what I have said, please see this page. – Paine  20:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I saw - you made a change, and afterwards the closing said it is to be kept as-is, so I posted the request to enforce it. Well, for the RfC, you need to work hard on inviting editors while avoiding WP:Canvassing. So, good luck!Forbidden User (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to add, are TfDs only for deletion?Forbidden User (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

You're probably already aware, Forbidden User, that getting other editors involved is fairly easy in this case. The RfC template controls a bot that automatically and randomly invites editors who are signed up to be notified, plus there were a lot of participants in the Tfd and many will probably be closely watching {{Distinguish}} and its talk page.

It's my understanding that Tfd means "Templates for discussion". At one time not so long ago, the "d" stood for deletion and the templates were pretty much nominated only for that. Presently however, editors use the Tfd for deletion, merges, whatever major template mods they feel may be needed and that might be controversial. A lot of people watch the Tfd, so it's a good place to get more opinions, if desired. Hope this helps! – Paine  10:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course it helps! Thanks.Forbidden User (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Pleasure! – Paine  10:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Template query

I'm not too familiar with template protection so I thought I'd ask someone who is: If a template is protected as a highly visible template, should a redirect to that template with thousands of transclusions also be protected? It would only require a vandal to copy the main template text into the redirect and alter it for them to vandalize thousands of pages at once, right? —Xezbeth (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Right, yes, I agree. The alias/redirect should also be protected. I would think there are many instances of this that would support our agreement. – Paine  19:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The template redirect in question was Template:Bigger. I think I've done it correctly; there was a TfD that asserted the template was unused, yet when I checked the transclusions it was being used on over 30k articles. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that is excellent, Xezbeth! Joys! – Paine  20:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hello Paine. I noticed This question and thought I could give some assistance. An example would be the protected template, {{Talk header}} and its high visibility redirects like {{Talkpage}} and {{Talk page}}. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way. I was successful in getting the protection reduced to allow TE edits. Can I count on my favorite TE, you, to add the appropriate {{Rcat}}s? They look so bare without them. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 01:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I'm preparing to up anchor and set adrift on a sea of dreams. When next we make port, that will be on my early list. Joys! – Paine  02:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, we are  Done, and thank you, John, for your work on this! – Paine  20:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I also went ahead and added {{pp-template}} (adds the template-edited lock to the top of the page and populates the redirect to Category:Wikipedia protected templates) to the known appropriate redirects. Joys! – Paine  21:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

As a main editor of Legend (disambiguation), I am calling your attention to Talk:Legend_(disambiguation)#Merger_proposal.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, TonyTheTiger, for including me in the proposal discussion! Joys! – Paine  04:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome, but why didn't you comment on the discussion?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Had to leave before I had finished studying it. Should get back to it soon. Patience, friendly tiger! – Paine  16:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

"because you thanked me"

Hi, I noticed you gave someone a "Because you thanked me" post/template. Where did you get that? I'd never seen it before. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Musdan77 – that is a template I made. To use the template it must be substituted, like this: {{subst:ytm}}. "Ytm" is a shortcut for the template found at {{Because you thanked me}}. All one must do is place that template at the very bottom of the user's talk page of the person who thanked you. When you place {{subst:ytm}} at the bottom of a user's talk page, the template will do the rest. It will produce the header, your signature and the timestamp for you. Joys! – Paine  16:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you --Musdan77 (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Pleasure! – Paine 

TB

Hello, Paine Ellsworth. You have new messages at RHaworth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Converting incomplete disambiguated titles to redirects of primary targets

WP:PDAB can help you acknowledge that there is no explicit policy and/or guideline on dealing with incomplete disambiguations. Rather "Madonna (album)" redirects to Madonna (Madonna album), and "Thriller (album)" redirects to "Thriller (Michael Jackson album)". --George Ho (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, George Ho – I suppose one has to deal with these on an almost daily basis for several years to get a "feel" for some forms of redirect categorization. To me, it was obvious that Coupling (TV series) was insufficient disambiguation. Since there is a dab page in place, and since that page has a "Television" section, it seems to fit the definition found in the template documentation very closely. What puzzled me, and perhaps you would be so kind as to explain it to me, was why you tagged the redirect with {{R to article without mention}}? The title is "Coupling", and the page you targeted is titled "Coupling", so how is it that the Coupling redirect was not mentioned? It was mentioned in the title, it was mentioned in the lead, and it was mentioned in the body of the article. Can you please explain your rationale for your population of Category:Redirects to an article without mention with the Coupling (TV series) redirect? – Paine  16:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't find any other templates, and I didn't fully understand the template. I couldn't call it "incomplete disambiguation", which implies that it should be a redirect to a disambiguation page. "(TV series)" should redirect to the UK series, as other short-lived versions don't match up to primacy of "(TV series)". --George Ho (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

To editor George Ho: Please try to understand that "(TV series)" is not as much disambiguation as "(UK TV series)". Don't you agree that "(UK TV series)" and "(U.S. TV series)" are both less ambiguous than "(TV series)" in this case? Therefore the redirect should populate Category:Redirects from incomplete disambiguations. Take a look at that category, Mr. Ho, and you will find thousands of redirects like Coupling (TV series) that target less ambiguous article titles. Okay, I see you have changed my edit to {{R from other disambiguation}}. While not incorrect, that is less correct than the tag I used. An example of that category would be Pitbull (entertainer), which targets Pitbull (rapper). Neither "entertainer" nor "rapper" is more ambiguous than the other, so in that case {{R from other disambiguation}} is the right tag to use. Please change it back, and please revert your hatnote edits. Don't just take my word for it, read the doc pages of the templates and their associated category pages. Ask the opinion of another editor you trust and let me know how that turns out. If you still disagree, then we can go from there. Thank you for your consideration, Mr. Ho. I know we are both after the same thing – improvement of redirect categorization on Wikipedia. To do that we must try to do our best to use the most correct templates to tag redirects.

There is a tool you can use for when you are not sure about a redirect's categorization. The {{This is a redirect}} template can be used alone, or it can be used with an empty first parameter, like this:

• {{This is a redirect||from subtopic|printworthy}}

When the This is a redirect template is used by itself, or when it is used with two pipes together like the above, the redirect will populate Category:Miscellaneous redirects. Several editors including myself monitor that category and will help out with the categorization when we see an entry that was placed there. This helped me learn how best to categorize redirects, and it might help others to learn, as well. – Paine  01:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I made it the same way as Thriller (album). --George Ho (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! and kudos for your catch of the Category:Redirects from moves that I had missed! Even someone like me who has worked with these for five years can still make mistakes, eh? Also, you might want to note that with this edit a previously created short disambiguation page was merged to form the present redirect, so we should add the R from merge rcat template to the redirect, as well.

Now, one more teeny, tiny thing... since Coupling (TV series) is an ambiguous term that could apply to three different articles, "Coupling (UK TV series)", "Coupling (U.S. TV series)" and "Coupling (Greek TV series)", don't you think it would be best if the redirect targeted the disambiguation page and section, Coupling (disambiguation)#Television? It could really apply to all three of those articles, couldn't it? – Paine  02:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Haven't you watched Coupling (BBC)? It was hilarious; not so for other derivatives. Because neither American nor Greek was funny nor surpassed the popularity of the original British series, "(TV series)" should redirect to the "(UK TV series)". Coupling UK is everywhere online: Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, and other sites. U.S. and Greek have not been available since original broadcast. "Coupling (TV series)" has never been that ambiguous. Past edits were based on traditional disambiguate-everything stuff that's been going on for years. For other examples, "Erotica (album)" redirects to Erotica (Madonna album), and "Angel (TV series)" redirects to Angel (1999 TV series). --George Ho (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I've never seen the series (so perhaps am objective?), and I am only now beginning to appreciate British humour by going through all of the old Dr. Who episodes. Mr. Ho, let's not belabor the point. The redirect can stay targeted as it is now (still needs the "from merge" category), and let me thank you very much for your opinions, and again for the "from move" catch and save. Joys! – Paine  03:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

PS. Almost forgot – since you used the redirect page title in the hatnote at Coupling (UK TV series), one more rcat is needed to tag the redirect: {{R mentioned in hatnote}}. PS added by – Paine 

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deadly Impact

Check the article's improvements. No need for WP:TNT anymore. Much better now. Yes? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is quite a bit better! As you said, a superb effort on the part of Tokyogirl79 and others, to include yourself, as well. Thank you very much for that and for drawing it back to my attention! Joys! – Paine  02:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

South Yemen

Why are you edit warring against the consensus and removing reliably sourced information? "Marxist-Leninist state" is reliably sourced for type of government and has been standard on Wikipedia for states like South Yemen for years. If you do not understand this, then review talk page archives, review reliable sources, whatever, but don't randomly revert edits. Marxism-Leninism is an ideology, Marxist-Leninist state is a type of government WELL AND CONSISTENTLY DEFINED SCHOLARLY BY RELIABLE SOURCES. I do not know what is so hard to understand about this. Thanks. Zozs (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear "Marxist-Leninist single-party state" is not only the consensus developed on the talk page of "South Yemen" (which you are edit warring against), but has also been the consensus for years (after MUCH talk page discussion which you should review in the archives) on Wikipedia for all states of the same kind: Soviet Union, East Germany, etc etc etc... Zozs (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Zozs, and thank you for coming to my talk page. I would very much appreciate it if you would contain discussion about this issue to the talk page of the article that is presently in question. You may also be interested to know that there are discussions on this page that may help shed light on all this. Joys! – Paine  15:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Recent software update

Hi Paine, I watch VPT and replied there. No need to ping me in more places :) You reported the issue just as I went to sleep. Matma Rex talk 14:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't certain that it was the update you made that causes the problem, or not. Just doing a little "detective" work. – Paine  14:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Noise music

Hi Paine, I would have preferred a move proposal in advance of the changes you made. The "noise music" versus "noise (music)" title has been discussed a couple of times, fresh discussion would have been a better idea than this bold edit. There are a couple of perspectives on this that should be considered. Semitransgenic _talk. 10:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Not for anything, Semitransgenic, but I didn't move a thing. All I did was to sort the redirect into categories. Before my edit the redirect looked like this (no categories). After my edit the redirect had been sorted into four categories. That's all I did. There was no page move! – Paine  11:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I wasn't aware that's what happened! It's not a big deal at this point so no worries. Semitransgenic _talk. 12:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Right back atcha – we won't even begin to talk about the times I've made similar errors (and much worse ones, as well). Joys! – Paine  15:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

"Artist" on Song Infobox

Hi Paine, I'm sorry that I didn't see your reply to my template edit request when you first made it. I've just added my thoughts and examples to the request here Template talk:Infobox song. Hope that's ok, and that I'm doing this right (I'm relatively new to this!). Thanks Ben wren (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem, Ben wren, and you're doing fine. I've responded on the Ibox's talk page and wish I could be of more help. Another suggestion might be to ask about this on the project talk page (as shown at the top of the Ibox talk page), and be sure to link to the Ibox talk page like you did above. To link to the actual section of our discussion you would use:

[[Template talk:Infobox song#Template-protected edit request on 21 August 2014|(your text here)]]

That way, you will be able to talk with people who are also knowledgable about all this.

One more thing – it may save you time in the future, when you think another editor might miss your talk-page post, you can "ping" them by just using a link to their user page in your post. That enables the notifications system. Best of good fortune to you, Ben wren! – Paine  03:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Explain

I've closed the discussion at Talk:South Yemen; it didn't make sense, they are still mixing up things which don't make sense. Just because no one has seen the error before doesn't mean that error has the right to be discussed. Its still an error, and the majority of sources still don't refer to it as having a "Marxist-Leninist single-party form of government".

Either you explain them that there is a difference between ideology and forms of government, and adding random words such as "Marxist-Leninist state" is different from form of government or I give up. No sources have said that "Marxist-Leninist single-party staet" is a form of government. Just because a country has been called as a Marxist-Leninist single-party state, doesn't mean that Marxist-Leninist single-party state is a form of government. ... And at last, there is a difference between state and republic , but who cares. Is this so hard for people to understand, really? The consensus before was a "sham consensus", it was factual inaccurate, and thats been my whole point from the very beginning... And it doesn't help really that no modern sources actually talk of a form of government in the former, or present socialist republics.

Well, TIAYN, I have tried to explain the difference; however, the involved editors don't seem to want to listen. Try not to be discouraged, because at least they are talking about it. My advice to you is to let the RfC run its course and see what happens. So far, it's a little like trying to convince the people that the world isn't flat, or that the Sun doesn't really "rise" in the morning and strike a course across the sky like some ancient god. In some cases it took hundreds of years to let the truth sink in. I've found that when it comes to a subject like "politics", there will be as many opinions as there are people giving them, so the best that can be done has been done. The only thing that might help is to list each and every scholarly source that clearly shows the difference between Marxist–Leninist, the ideology, and socialist, the state and form of government. I wish you great good fortune in this, TIAYN, great good fortune. – Paine  16:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a redirect, unprintworthy

Hi, Paine. We met somewhere this summer regarding redirect categories. I have lost track of the discussion altho I read some of it only last week. Do we have no default identification of redirects as printworthy and unprintworthy by category? I have supposed that all Redirects from people are printworthy by default, but I looked last week and could find only that they are "with possibilities" by default (Redirects with possibilities is a hidden parent category), not printworthy.

Anyway: moments ago I tried {{Redr|alt|u}} and found what seems to be a bug. The two parameters generate this triple message: From an alternative name; From a Unicode character; From an unprintworthy page title.

But {{Redr|alt}} generates the single message: From an alternative name. So it seems that 'u' has been used as to abbreviate two different messages? --P64 (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not you are the author of some parameter functions, as I recall vaguely, please remind me where I should have posted this note.

--P64 (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, P64 – Since this involves the This is a redirect template, then a good, general place to ask would be the talk page of that template. Please note that there are several rcats that populate the Unprintworthy redirects category by default, and {{R from Unicode}} is one of those. The others, such as {{R caps}} and {{R from plural}}, will also populate the Unprintworthy redirects category. So don't expect the letter "u" to always mean "unprintworthy". Since {{R u}} is an alias/shortcut for the Unicode rcat, that is the categorization you get when you use it, along with its default unprintworthiness. There is a list of aliases specifically for the unprintworthy rcat, and of course, none of them are "u". Have I understood your inquiry correctly? – Paine  02:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

One last issue related to Legend disambiguation

Since you took the time to consider the issues at Talk:Legend (disambiguation)#Merger proposal, I am hoping you might help us consider a related issue at Talk:Legends (TV series)#Call for a vote on hatnote for this page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, TonyTheTiger, for again thinking of me. I have left a comment there in regard to the ambiguous article title. Joys! – Paine  08:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to consider the issue and make your comment. I have responded. I hope my response will help you to make a decision on how to help us work toward a consensus. We are sort of on the consensus/no consensus border so each voice now is critical in determining whether there is a consensus or whether a collective voice has come to no consensus. I hope you will add your name to either the support or oppose section so that we can have a stronger consensus or a no consensus determined by adequate responses rather than a no consensus due to too few responses.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I hope you can forgive me, TonyTheTiger, since the reason I left the comment was because I neither support nor oppose your suggested hatnote. I feel that the best solution is the one I suggested, but I am willing to go along with whatever the community of involved editors decides. Thank you again for thinking of me! – Paine  13:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to consider the issue and leave us feedback. Generally, a disambiguation page will never serve as the lone link in a hatnote on a disambiguated page. If you start adding lone link disambiguation hatnotes on disambiguated pages, you will get reverted by veteran disambiguators. The assumption is that once you get to a disambiguated page, you are only confused with similar disambiguations. Although it might seem that you should send them back to the disambiguation page, the MOS preference is for a detailed hatnote directing to other similar disambiguations, but if there are too many including the main dab page as a hatnote catchall at the end of a hatnote. However, the fact that you took the time to consider this is greatly appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Paine! Have a question for you...

Greetings Paine! It's been a while. Hope all is well! Anyways, so here's the point of this message: I'm trying to understand the purpose of {{R from old history}}, and the category that it populates. From how I am understanding the template, it's essentially for redirects that have contain a history of edits when it was previously an article. Is this it's intended purpose? (Basically, I'm trying to find the best "R to/from..." template that can be used for a redirect that contains an edit history from when it was previously an article.) Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I'm looking at {{R from old history}}, and I don't think that it is the correct template for the purpose in which I'm trying to tag this example: Dragon Warrior (NES game). In fact, I'm not even sure if the redirect template or category I am looking for, in which I desire to categorize this redirect, even exists. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Steel man! Seems like just yesterday we worked together! Yes, we are well as can be and hope you and yours are doing well, too. That rcat can be confusing. First of all, it populates Category:Redirects with old history, a category that's also populated by {{R from CamelCase}}, a separate rcat, and by {{R from subpage}}, a redirect to R with old history. The Camel Case redirects are pretty obvious, since Wikipedia had to use Camel Case in its article and other page titles because of software limitations way back when. So that should lead us to an understanding of more general titles that are also considered "old history". Then are introduced all page titles that are subpages, whether they are old history or not. It's an interesting mix, but I don't see how it would apply to your redirect, which seems to be correctly tagged with {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. In the history (from the page you renamed), it looks like there may have been a merge back in 2008 when Anthony Appleyard moved the dab page, but it's not easy to tell. If the "NES game" is historic in any way, then we would want to use either {{R from historic name}} or {{R from former name}} as appropriate. The {{R from old history}} should be reserved for page titles from back in Wikipedia's past, again, like the Camel Case redirects. – Paine  18:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Paine, that essentially answered my question, and explained a lot more. At this point, I'm thinking I need to create a new "R to/from..." template to meet my idea ... possibly a template named something like {{R from retained attributions}}, {{R from old version}}, or something of the like. But, if it were to exist, the documentation would have to include done sort of information to explain how it differs from {{R from merge}}. Does this make sense? (I'm asking you as who I consider "English Wikipedia's resident Rcat SME.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It all makes sense (except that last part ). Usually, the only redirects that have long histories are from merges or from copy/paste moves. That's why I figured that the redirect you mentioned was from a merge, since Anthony Appleyard would have fixed it if it had been a copy/paste move. How many redirects like this have you come by? (That's usually what I ask myself before I create an rcat – if there are a lot like that, then they would warrant their own category.) Now – at great risk of sounding vain, what's "SME" exactly? – Paine  19:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've come across at least 10 or so of them, each of which are either the result of a failed merge due to parallel histories, or when the attributions at a title need to be moved so that a new set of histories can be moved there (like during the result of a move to a redirect.) Oh, yeah, I should have linked SME. :) Steel1943 (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

"Subject-matter expert"? – UR waay too kind, per usual. Ten redirects are definitely enough for their own cat, because we can expect the number to grow. I have to admit that I've probably come across a share of those, which I either called a "merge" (borderline) or did my best to cat them sans a merge template. So I'd call that an excellent catch on your part. We might want to consider an additional param for the {{tpr}} template for those redirects that have talk pages – something that would indicate that the page history is kept (similar to the merge param). – Paine  13:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Paine, would you have an idea on what to name a category for such redirects? I'm not sure what to name it if the category did exist. (My apologies for the late response; I got a bit caught up in a lot of other edits in the "world wide Wikipedia".) Steel1943 (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry back to you – my talk-page notifications don't seem to working today. If not one of the two names you suggested, then perhaps something like {{R from unmerged history}} and Category:Redirects from unmerged histories? – Paine  11:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Redirect template

For future reference, it's generally not a good idea to make several small edits to a highly-transcluded template in quick succession. It tends to have a negative effect on the database. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It appears that "several small edits ... in quick succession" does not accurately describe what I've done. The only edits I've made today were two minuscule edits about fifteen minutes apart, neither of which had any effect whatsoever on the template's output, and one major edit made more than four hours after that; however, thank you very much for your concern. – Paine  14:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Unfortunately, Closedmouth is right here. Any edit is an edit. There is no such thing as an edit to a template that has "[no] effect whatsoever on the template's output", as editing templates causes each page using the template to be re-parsed. Edits to templates at this scale take a quite a few days for their load on the website to finish. Your edits to this template briefly took the site down, sadly (more information to come). Please be very careful in future before editing highly-transcluded templates. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jdforrester (WMF): I'm sorry, I understand all that and I've been at it pretty steadily since before 0300 UTC. I have to wonder why I haven't had problems? Also, I've made some edits to other templates in the last 14–15 hours, and some of them could be fairly highly-transcluded – is it possible that those edits also added to the problem? I truly, deeply apologize if I am responsible for the site shutdown, and I will be more careful from now on. – Paine  16:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

PS. I've been working in the sandbox of a template that goes to nearly 20,000 redirects. I think I'll sign off now and leave that one for later – much later. PS left by – Paine 

Now I know what caused my troubles earlier today. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Don't worry too much; these things happen. Just wanted to make sure you didn't go and edit a dozen more times without being aware. :-) Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I am truly so sorry. I have applied this template more and more to rcats, but I had not realized I had grown it to its present, highly transcluded state. Just last March I made three changes in quick succession with no apparent problem. It needs one of those document warning boxes, so this doesn't happen again. – Paine 

I just added the {{High-risk}} template to the /doc page. Seems WMF Labs confirms nearly two million transclusions. – Paine  11:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I am also going to have to check and tag some rcats with either High-risk or High-use, e.g., {{R from other capitalisation}} is transcluded to over 400,000 pages. – Paine  12:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

"fixing" dates

Hi, I guess you didn't realize when you fixed dates at Talk:OMICS Group that 08-02-2014 (8 February 2014) is a very different date from 2014-08-02 (August 2, 2014)? --Randykitty (talk) 09:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Randykitty – that is one reason why dates sometimes need to be fixed. Some people read 08-02-2014 as "8 February", while others read it as "August 2". How can you be certain your interpretation is correct? – Paine  14:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Because that talkpage, before your edit, wa only edited in February 2014... And most people read 08-02-2014 as "8 February", as far as I know, only in the US is this different. In any case, if you go around correcting dates, I think you should be sure that you do this correctly. Just shifting the position of the year is bound to create lots of incorrect "corrections". --Randykitty (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here is the edit. You changed four instances of |accessdate=08-02-2014 to |accessdate=2014-08-02. Now, whilst 08-02-2014 is ambiguous - it could mean either 8 February 2014 or August 2, 2014 - the previous edit was made on 21 February 2014 so it is very unlikely that August 2, 2014 was meant. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for digging more deeply than I did. Hopefully, the ambiguity of the previous access dates is accepted by us all. After I responded to Randykitty, I noted that editor's ready understanding of the meaning of "2014-08-02" which coincides with my own understanding of it. I have made the changes to the February 2nd date. – Paine  16:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Layout and use of {{This is a redirect}}

I note your recent edit to {{R from scientific name}} here. There are actually some more templates that needed the same edit, which I've made:

• {{R from scientific name/aux}}
• {{R to scientific name}} and {{R to scientific name/aux}}
• {{R from alternative scientific name}} and {{R from alternative scientific name/aux}}

I hadn't previously fully appreciated how {{This is a redirect}} works. I'm not sure why it so prominently chooses the first template as the "main" one, both hiding the others by default and showing them at a lower indentation level when shown. Can you explain the reasoning behind this layout? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Peter – I'm curious, too! but first, the recent changes to the layout of {{Redr}} were the result of a discussion on that talk page about how the redirect-arrow image in the Mbox could be confusing to editors, as it seems to "point" to different things on different redirect pages. An editor was at first beguiled by this until it was discovered the nature of images in Mboxes. Realizing that other editors (especially new ones) might also be confused by this, I decided to clarify it a bit. In an attempt to find ways to dispel that confusion, I collapsed the parameters 2 thru 7, since there are some redirects on which the box could extend very long down the page. A byproduct of the collapse is that params 2 thru 7 exhibit a slightly lower indentation level. It can be noted that on the unnamed-parameter level, there is no particular priority of one rcat over another. Those of us who use the Redr to tag redirects each have our different ideas about "which rcats should go where"; however, the order of the rcats makes no difference in the categorization of a redirect, as you've probably surmised. Hope that helps.

I still think it's odd to show just the first category, thereby making it look the most important. Why not hide/show all the rcats if a long list is considered bad? This is more usual when collapsible lists are used elsewhere. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. That was actually my first thought – to collapse the entire Mbox, which would have a much better appearance. As I recall, I encountered a technical problem with that. Let me massage it a little more – see if I can come up with a better "mousetrap". – Paine 

To editor Peter coxhead: I find that I previously gave up too easily. The recent change collapses all parameters, so the only text that may be seen above the collapse would be the protected page text and the miscellaneous redirects text. All else is hidden until the show link is clicked. Thank you for the input! – Paine  09:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: better, I think! What do you think of the other suggestion I made at Template talk:This is a redirect#Size of box? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

To editor Peter coxhead: Thank you very much! I worked several hours to get that just right. The technical problem resulted from the fact that the first parameter may be left empty if an editor is unsure whether or not enough rcats have been added. Finally figured out a way to get around that and still collapse the template from above the first parameter's code. Anyway, those top and bottom margins have been there from the beginning, but by use of HTML line breaks. I got rid of those line breaks by adding the textstyle parameter with this edit not long ago. As for suppression of those top and bottom margins, I've actually always thought they set the template apart and made it more readable. So let's see what others may say about it – I'll stay out of it for awhile on the template talk page so as not to perhaps influence the opinions of others. Let's see what happens. – Paine  03:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

So now, I want to say that you have done some good work on those science rcats to make them what I suppose could be called "kingdom specific", at least to plants thus far. Taxonomy has changed substantially since I first studied it back in high school, so I'm curious as to what the next steps will be in terms of the additional subcategories that will eventually be added. When I look at, for example, this image, I am astounded by how this has grown from the old "Animal, Plant and Protozoa" days. So I'm curious as to what direction you are taking the science rcats. How simple or complicated do you intend to make them? If there is concern for how complex they could get, then you might want to give {{R from alternative language}} a looksee. That one rcat is capable of categorizing to dozens of subcats of the topcat, Redirects from alternative languages, based upon the specific language codes used. Maybe there is a way to adapt this system to the science rcats? to make specific sorts to potentially many subcats a little easier? Again, though, let me repeat that you have done some good work on these science rcats, some very good work. Thank you for that! – Paine  11:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm active in WikiProject Plants so I set up the general possibility of subcategorization with specific coding only for |plant (using #switch so it's easy to add additional cases) and then advertised the change at WikiProject Tree of Life, so that other WikiProjects concerned with organisms could tell me if they wanted to use this possibility. WikiProjects should be interested in using these categories for their maintenance activities, but so far no-one else has expressed any interest. (Actually even within WikiProject Plants there are really only two or three of us with any serious interest in categorizing redirects. It's something of a gnomish activity. :-) ) Peter coxhead (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, very gnomish, which is one thing I like about it. Well, take your time and focus on what you like. If others eventually take an interest, then at least you've made a good start. Joys! – Paine  23:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Transcluding your talk page

see Special:WhatLinksHere/User_talk:Paine_Ellsworth/P.I. Frietjes (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

now fixed here. Frietjes (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Frietjes! I had used one of my user pages as a sandbox for {{This is a redirect/collapse top}} and forgot to change it back. I didn't see the error until after I had transferred code from the main sandbox to the live template. Since it's "high-use", I thought I'd better wait until later to put back the correct page, the collapse-top subpage you made. I just didn't want to make another edit so soon after the first one. Good catch! – Paine 

Category:Redirects from Artificial languages-language terms

Category:Redirects from Artificial languages-language terms, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. - TheChampionMan1234 03:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, TheChampionMan1234, for this notification! It is hoped that my rationale for keeping and for not renaming this specifically name-formatted subcategory of Category:Redirects from non-English-language terms will meet with your approval. – Paine  19:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Testcases page header

Re: Template:Testcases page header

Hello,

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ATestcases_page_header&diff=629082496&oldid=625450950

(omit interference between notice box and TOC)

What interference did you see..? Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Sardanaphalus – the interference took place when editors who use a large font to view pages went to a testcases page. The floated testcases-notice box hovered over part of the TOC, so as to cover some of the words and make topics unreadable on the pages I viewed. The only way to make the TOCs readable was to omit the floating of the notice box. I thought it better for it to be above the TOC rather than below it, and most certainly better than floating over it to obscure the headers' words. I have added this explanation to the template's talk page. – Paine 

To editor Sardanaphalus: Hi again – first, please forgive me for cluttering up your question and my response, possibly clouding the issue. I have placed those superfluous concerns below under a subheader. Next, in regard to your helpful template, while my main concern was for those editors like myself who have to use their browsers' largest font to read Wikipedia, I also had another accessibility issue in mind, that of mobile devices. I'm not really sure if mobile Wikipedia even makes TOCs appear, but if they do appear, then they were likely obscured there, as well. Under normal circumstances, though, the template very nicely made the TOC appear beside the Testcases box. I just wish there were a way to do so without floating the box over top of the TOC. Joys! – Paine  03:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Diffs and oldids

btw Sardanaphalus, how did you come up with the above URL that takes us directly to my edit, when the normal bare URL and the {{diff}} template take us to your previous edit, which has the same oldid number? I have raised this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 131#Diff number. – Paine 

Okay, I see how one gets that URL – just by using the diff from the history page; however, it still does not explain why the two edits, yours and mine, have the same oldid number of 625450950. If "next" is used in the Diff template rather than "prev", then it takes us to my most recent edit, but use of "prev" take us to your previous edit. That seems to be the only difference – the oldid number is the same for both edits. Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice might quip. – Paine 

Either one or both of the &diff= and &oldid= parameters may be specified. Both can take numeric values, but when both are used together, &diff= also recognises certain keywords.

If &diff= is used alone, a specific revision is displayed, with a diff at the top which compares that revision with the previous revision.

If &oldid= is used alone, a specific revision is displayed, without a diff at the top.

If &diff= and &oldid= are used together (they may be given in either order), there are four ways of doing it.

When both are numeric, those two revisions are compared and the revision displayed below the diff is that specified by the &diff= parameter. The two revisions need not be consecutive, but the later revision number needs to be in the &diff= with the earlier one in &oldid= - if they are exchanged, a backwards comparison is made.

When both parameters are used together, the &diff= parameter doesn't need to be a revision number: there are three permitted keywords - prev, next and cur.

&diff=prev displays the revision specified by &oldid=, and the diff shown at the top is a comparison of that revision with the previous revision.

&diff=next displays the revision after the one specified by &oldid=, and the diff shown at the top is a comparison of those two consecutive revisions.

&diff=cur displays the current version; the diff shown at the top is a comparison of the current version with that specified by &oldid= - it can be any revision from the page history.

Since

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ATestcases_page_header&oldid=625450950

and

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ATestcases_page_header&oldid=629082496

are consecutive revisions of the same page, and 629082496 is the current version, this means that the following are all equivalent:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ATestcases_page_header&diff=629082496
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ATestcases_page_header&diff=629082496&oldid=625450950
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ATestcases_page_header&diff=prev&oldid=629082496
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ATestcases_page_header&diff=next&oldid=625450950
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ATestcases_page_header&diff=cur&oldid=625450950

As soon as another edit is made to the page, that last one will become different from the others. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Once again, Redrose64, you make a complicated subject understandable; thank you very much for that! It appears that the bottom line is that in the future, I just have to be more careful with the terms in the Diff template. Joys! – Paine  03:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're using the {{diff}} template, this takes four parameters. The first one is the page name; the second and third correspond with the &diff= and &oldid= parameters as described above, except that they need to appear in that order; and the fourth is the link text. So the last four examples given above become

• {{diff|Template:Testcases page header|629082496|625450950|Example 2}} → Example 2
• {{diff|Template:Testcases page header|prev|629082496|Example 3}} → Example 3
• {{diff|Template:Testcases page header|next|625450950|Example 4}} → Example 4
• {{diff|Template:Testcases page header|cur|625450950|Example 5}} → Example 5

--Redrose64 (talk) 11:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! – Paine  10:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Article Rejected/Account Blocked

Article was rejected due to someone else's post from the same URL being inappropriate

Please can you advise whether the request needs to be resubmitted, the articles that were posted by 'TheApprenticeNetwork' are unrelated to this post and were posted by someone else.

87.82.210.210 (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea what this is about nor why you came to my talk page. I would like to help, but you have not given me enough information. If you help me by doing that, then maybe I will be able to help you. So, can you provide more of an explanation? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Infobox planet

So, a few months ago I requested the addition of Minimum Orbital Intersection Distance to Template:Infobox planet. You had asked me if I wanted anything else, and at the time I said no, but I've found a particular couple parameters have also become important; while like I said in the earlier request that we tend to care most about our own planet, the minor planet center kindly provides MOID to most of the planets, so I would like to request the parameters mercury_moid, venus_moid, mars_moid, jupiter_moid, saturn_moid, uranus_moid, and neptune_moid, should an asteroid happen to pass fairly close to one of the aforementioned planets. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

To editor Exoplanetaryscience:  Done – Paine  03:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:R from subsidiary title

Will you be able to revamp this template to resemble other redirect templates? --George Ho (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, George – Yes! that one was on my to-do list and is finished for now. And I will happily accept any ideas for its improvement. I removed some fluff from its documentation; there were abilities listed that the template hasn't had since I began to work on it in 2011, perhaps never had. I also updated Category:Redirects from subsidiary titles. Joys! – Paine  17:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:DABCONCEPT versus WP:DABPRIMARY

Re: WP:DABCONCEPT versus WP:DABPRIMARY

The description for the WP:DABPRIMARY template is not correct in all cases - sometimes a page presented as a disambiguation page is not merely a primary topic, but is the only topic. That is, the page needs to be converted into an article, and no disambiguation page is needed at all. The former WP:DABCONCEPT template captured that situation, but perhaps the current template could be given an option to include it. bd2412 T 13:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, BD2412 – when the two templates were merged, I tried to include the important content of both templates. When I compare the new with the old, I thought I did it correctly. How would you reword it, or what would you add to include the option you appear to feel has been omitted?

Old Dabconcept template

New Dabprimary template

– Paine  14:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Something like this:

Note, for example, Genetic variance, Fried cheese, and Comment spam. These are pages that merely list subtopics of a single concept. There is no disambiguation needed at all between them, so the page should be converted without creating a separate disambiguation page. By contrast, Alien Nation has a primary topic (the franchise), but needs a disambiguation page to cover topics unrelated to this primary topic. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that does make it much clearer, thank you! Let me massage it a bit to try and make it more concise. I see three possibilities:

1. Pages like your examples that have only topics related to the primary topic,
2. Pages that only have unrelated topics, and
3. Pages that have a mixture of related and unrelated topics.

So maybe this to cover all three?:

At some point, if it's okay with you, it would be best to transfer this discussion to the Dabprimary talk page. – Paine  21:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. I appreciate your solution. bd2412 T 22:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, bd2412, and the changes have been made. – Paine  23:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Rcat tool

Hi! Is there Rcat tool or gadget or user script I could use to make rcatting easier? :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, ☺ · Salvidrim! – How many times! have I wanted such a tool, but then I would remind myself that, while some tasks beg for a gadget or bot to accomplish them, most rcatting actually requires a personal touch. A bot or script will miss the need to place an {{R from merge}} here or an {{R printworthy}} there. So I decided long ago that I would tackle rcat tagging without the use of such tools. There are some editors, I think, who use such gadgets, but I usually have to follow behind them to finish the job, because there is always something a bot or script misses. Wish I could be more helpful to you! – Paine  06:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I meant more like a gizmo like Twinkle, which is user-operated but where rcatting (or stubsorting for that matter), is done using dropdowns and a GUI and whatnot, which would be immensely helpful for someone like me who is totally unfamiliar with the intricacies of the plethora of rcats. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 08:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I know, but since I don't use such a gadget, then I can only suggest that until you find one, the next best things are to use the indexes, which I am presently updating, and know that the more you work with rcats the more you will know them and the more comfortable you will be using them. – Paine  09:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Paine!

First off, hope all is well. I ran across something that I thought was a bit funny, to me, the other day that you may care to know; a while back, I thought that you and another editor that I interact with from time-to-time reminded me of each other a bit, and then the two of you interacted with each other in a discussion, and I chuckled a bit. I mean, I almost convinced myself that the two of you were socks of each other (I'm joking), since that would be impossible given several factors such as you and the other editor working on different scopes of the project. But yeah, I got a bit of a laugh out of it. Okay, anyways, here's the question I have for you:

A while back, you created {{WikiProject Redirect}} in a very specific way to where there would be nearly no way for an editor to "get away" with placing it on an improper talk page; if you have some free time, you think you may be able to do something similar with {{WikiProject Templates}}? I figure that you may be able to accomplish the task a lot hastier than myself, given that the edits that you did to {{WikiProject Redirect}} would be quite similar to what updates would need to be done to {{WikiProject Templates}}. Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It'd be a pleasure! I read on the template, ... This particular template is especially important to the project because it is used in the maintenance of other templates. .... Can I assume that you want it made clear that only the talk pages of those templates that are used in the maintenance of other templates should hold this banner, and that no other template talk pages qualify? – Paine  19:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. Just like the {{WikiProject Redirect}} template, {{WikiProject Templates}}, from what I see, should not be on pages in the "Template talk" namespace except in very rare cases. Steel1943 (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, then if it's all the same to you, I would like to transfer the essential parts of this discussion to the banner's talk page, so that others will be aware of what I'm doing and may chime in with opinions and suggestions. – Paine  20:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

By all means. Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments on RfC: Should Wikinews be unhidden by default?

Re: RfC...

I only just got pointed at this, and wanted to say thanks for your comments there.

To be honest, it's probably just-as well I missed the RfC when open. Comments about an "archive" being uncurated could-well have prompted me to resort to my 'weapons-grade' vocabulary. I truly cannot understand people thinking historical records of what was known at a point in time should be updated. To be fatuous, over on Wikinews we leave Ministry of Truth duties to Wikipedia.

We've had a few new people pop up on Wikinews, and the great-big warning you get if editing an article published over 24 hours ago is completely ignored. It's painful having to revert well-intentioned edits because the audience for a story when fresh have moved on.

I've been editing on Wikiews for about nine years now, so I consider myself unqualified to critique warnings, and how-comprehendible policy documents might be to folks more-used to editing here. Given you've obviously got it about a news archive not being "curated", and aren't currently a Wikinews contributor, could you look at a few things and give some constructive criticism? The obvious is the warning if you click edit on an article published a couple of days ago; and, the automatic user talk welcome template. --Brian McNeil /^talk 04:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Brian – thank you for coming! I wish I had thought to raise your specific points above at that RfC. It looks like it did the trick, though, because the template has been switched to show Wikinews by default. I'll be happy to look at the items you asked, and I'll let you know what I find. Joys! – Paine  19:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Well Brian, this has been and still is, for me, quite a learning experience! Even the term "editor" has a tighter meaning on WN, perhaps equivalent to "administrator" on WP? I looked at my own WN talk page Welcome message, which should be up-to-date since it is transcluded (rather than substituted like here on WP). That is a rather complicated message with lots of good info. I think I would give it a light bg color rather than it's present transparent state. It brought up questions about transclusion and substitution that WN does not appear to have project nor help pages that would make template usage better-defined. For example, see n:Help:What links here#Cases of transclusion where it is red-linked.

The notice you mention – is that n:Template:Editintro notcurrent? That appears to be the only diff between a new article and an older one. The "some time ago" in the initial "caution" statement threw me:

Caution! You are about to change a Wikinews article published some time ago.

I found that in an article that was published yesterday, 15 Dec. To me, "some time ago" means more than just "some time in the past". It rather means "quite some time ago" or "some time in the distant past". That should probably be edited to:

Caution! You are about to change a Wikinews article published on a previous date.

...or even better, if WN has a template that can supply the actual publication date:

Caution! You are about to change a Wikinews article published on (date of publication).

The rest of the info seems fine for now.

I was deeply impressed by how much better WN is now compared with how it appeared back in early 2011 when I first logged in. For example, WN's project page n:Wikinews:Reviewing articles, and especially its collaboration page (I do like that word as the phrase emits so much more meaning than "talk page" or "discussion page".) impressed me because they show that there are several concerned contributors with interesting opinions. They show that people are at work in an ongoing effort to improve WN.

Myself, I've done some writing, but when it comes to news, I've always been more about "reading" it rather than professionally writing it. And that is why it might be so difficult to recruit good journalists, perhaps from the student population and the retired ranks. There are so few as compared with the rest of us, the vast majority of people would probably rather read the news than report and write it.

I suppose that, just like here on WP, it is important to balance between attraction of new writers/editors and retention of present ones. That is never an easy job. The new article review process should be designed to get easier and easier as a journalist earns respect for her or his work. However, even the best journalists must always answer to that hard-nosed, overworked editor and, when the article is "front page" material, that group of higher-ups who determine what does and does not go on the front page. On WN this difficult balance is made even harder by the fact that contributors, rather than being professionally paid for their work, are volunteers. That must be one of the hardest balancing acts there is.

I hope I've been of some help – please feel free to hit me with other specific items for critique. – Paine 

Dabprimary template

Hello, Paine Ellsworth. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Recent edits

To editor Technical 13: You've made a lot of edits to my work page archive, and I thank you very much for them. Unfortunately, the page is broken again in the same manner as before, the same as in the screenshot I uploaded. If you go back to the diff just before your first edit to the page, just after Jack's, there is no page width stretching. While your first edit did not break anything (it looked okay until your second set of edits), it's diff seems to show that it is broken. So I have no idea exactly what broke the page again, but it was in that second set of edits you made. – Paine  21:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• PE, if you scroll over, and then down to where the line of text is that is stretching it out, what is the text that you see there. That will help me narrow down where the glitch is. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

To editor Technical 13: I was just doing some checks without logging in, and I thought I'd check my archive page at the diff of your final edit. The page was stretched. Not being near the technical level you have, I wondered if placing the code you used in the MW common.css would also affect how unregistered users and registered users who are not logged in could view a page? Would pages appear normal for them, too? or would they look broken to them? – Paine  16:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• It would fix it for them too. It's a patch for everyone that views the site. I'd coordinate with Edokter as he's usually my go to guy for css (on the rare case I can't figure it out on my own), and would know the best way to implement it properly.  :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds like a good idea! Good luck with it, and let me know if I can be of service. Joys! – Paine 

Happy Holiday Cheer

Thank you.

Pleasure!

Best wishes to you and yours for happy holidays and a prosperous 2015. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

and thank you right back! Joys! – Paine 

Mugharet el-Zuttiyeh‎

Hi! Re this spooky cave: the removal was on purpose; here comes the explanation I was too lazy to type out.

• Category:Anthropology is not needed because the article is already indirectly categorized under Category:Anthropology (Anthropology-->Paleoanthropology-->Paleoanthropological sites), and Anthropology is a really broad category anyways.

• Category:Hominin fossils is more of a WP:Set category than a topic category; the cat could be used as a topic cat, but it would make it harder to find articles about actual hominin fossils and it would duplicate Category:Paleoanthropological sites (of which Mugharet el-Zuttiyeh‎ is already a member of).

Is that ok with you? Let me know what you think! Cheers, jonkerz ♠talk 02:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That all makes sense to me, so I've restored your edit. This will be a handy reference in case someone else challenges it. Joys and Happy Holidays to you and yours! – Paine  03:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Joys and Happy Holidays to you and yours, too! :) jonkerz ♠talk 03:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, FWiW Bzuk; Joys and Happy Holidays to you and yours, too! – Paine  23:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, best wishes for a happy holiday season ...

		Happy Holiday Cheer!
		Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys! Hafspajen (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Hafspajen! and Joys 'n Happy Holidays to you and yours, too! – Paine 

Aliases

Just a clarification: According to the infobox policy, the alias field is for alternate names used professionally and not covered elsewhere in the infobox. The infobox is titled "U;Nee". Putting "U;Nee" in the alias field is redundant. It's like saying "U;Nee, also known as U;Nee." If the infobox was titled with her birth name, then it would be appropriate to put her stage name elsewhere in the infobox. I researched this quite thoroughly before making these edits. Thank you for being so civil in your edit summary. You are just about the only wikipedia kpop editor who seems to bother with any communication at all! Shinyang-i (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

To editor Shinyang-i: Okay, yes, I see it now. It's the phrase "...other than the name in the |name= parameter," that I missed. Joys and Happy Holidays to you and yours! – Paine 

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Paine Ellsworth, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Debt.com and Consolidated Credit

HI there. I was wondering why you created redirects for the pages "Debt.com" and "Consolidated Credit" and turned them back into drafts. I had moved them over to article status. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeparsley (talk • contribs) 22:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

To editor Jeparsley: Mostly a judgement call; I may have been wrong. I came across those because they populated a category I monitor, Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace. They both had templates on them that were not meant for article mainspace. Since no one else had removed those templates, I concluded that they had been moved to article namespace prematurely, so I moved them back to draftspace. If you feel they are ready to "go live" in mainspace, then there should be a procedure in place for you to do so. Apologies if this was an inconvenience for you. Joys and Happy Holidays to you and yours! – Paine  23:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Yes I do believe they are ready to go live, Now how do I remove the redirect that you created back to he draft page? Or is there something else I am supposed to do? Jeparsley (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Jason

Jason, I have tagged your help request with an {{admin help}} template to try to speed things along for you. Hope this helps! – Paine  10:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Jason here. Draft:Debt.com would be immediately nominated for deletion. There's a difference between the "significant coverage" required for notability and "having their name mentioned in passing". Draft:Consolidated Credit is slightly better since at least the CreditCards.com page is about the company itself, but it's still borderline at best. I'll delete the redirects, but I'd strongly advise against turning at least Draft:Debt.com live in its current state. Huon (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I see the redirects have been deleted already, but I'd strongly advise Jason not to move those drafts himself but to make use of the review process and, if at all possible, to improve the references to give a better indication that the organizations have been the subjects of significant third-party coverage. Huon (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I have not kept up with the new-article creation process, so I definitely go along with editor Huon and suggest, Jason, that you read his words carefully. There's no sense in moving those articles to mainspace prematurely just to have someone come along and delete them or suggest they be speedily deleted. Joys! – Paine  14:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

PS. And, Huon, we wish you and yours a Happy and Prosperous New Year! – PS left by – Paine 

Happy New Year Paine Ellsworth!

Happy New Year!

Paine Ellsworth,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Hafspajen (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

And a Joyous 'n Prosperous New Year right back atcha, Hafspajen! – Paine  10:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Paine Ellsworth!!

Happy New Year!

Paine Ellsworth,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Thank you very much, Iryna Harpy! We wish a Joyous and Happy New Year to you and yours, too! – Paine  01:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Paine Ellsworth,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

And a Joyous and Happy New Year to you and yours, FWiW Bzuk! – Paine 

Bad maintenance category on Civil rights movement

Something in the convoluted mess that is {{This is a redirect}} is managing to transclude {{ambig}} onto the redirect page, which is causing it to be incorrectly placed into Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification. Please fix. Anomie⚔ 15:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed, Anomie⚔, and Happy New Year to you 'n yours! – Paine  16:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Paine Ellsworth,
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! Thank you for the kind thoughts and for your work. Last year was a hard one, both physically, thanks to medical ailments, and on Wikipedia, thanks to a plethora of Wikitrolls. Colleagues like you make staying here worthwhile. Here's to a better year to all!
--Tenebrae (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for these nice thoughts, Tenebrae, and we hope you and yours enjoy a Prosperous, Healthy and Happy New Year, too! – Paine  23:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Free agent

I removed it because he isn't a free agent anymore. I am using the free agent categories to update old articles. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's cool; however, it's better to answer on the player's talk page where I asked the question, so I will copy this to that page. – Paine  21:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Now the articles titled "Free Agent" and "Free agent" all seem to be in one category. Also now the old ones titled as Free Agent in the source code now display the properly better capitalized Free agent. Thanks for your help. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Pleasure! – Paine 

Just for the record, the articles currently titled as "Free agent" in the source code used to not have their own category and did not appear in the Free Agent category because of the different spellings, Now they are all one. Thanks again. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it just took a little change (parser function) to the header code. Getting them all into one cat was easy. It took awhile to figure out just where to place the parser function. Good catch! – Paine 

FYI WikiOriginal-9, I made the ibox code a little more concise after noting that all those parameters were inside a "switch" function. So only one instance of the category name is needed. – Paine  23:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean only one instance is needed. Sry lol WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

When the switch function is used, any parameters that are not specified as equal (=) to something will be equal to whatever the next parameter that is specified as equal to something is equal to. For example, in:

• {{#switch: {{{currentteam}}}|Free Agent|Free agent|free agent=[[(category name)]]

...all three capitalizations will populate the category to which "free agent" is equal. – Paine  00:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. I have seen "free agent" used a few times so that is helpful. Having all of the variations in one cat is a huge help. Having their titles changed to "Free agent" is good too because that is actually the proper capitalization (basketball players use "Free agent" and two word positions don't capitalize the second word, see Julio Jones "Wide receiver") There used to be so many outdated articles. Free agents who haven't played in ten years. Not even joking lol. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

And again, it's a pleasure to help! I love to edit templates, and iboxes are usually a good challenge for me. Happy editing and New Year! – Paine  08:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Your signature

Hi, I know that Technical 13 bangs on about other people's signatures - I don't know if they've mentioned it, but your signature seems to contain unexpanded parser functions, contrary to WP:SIG#NT. These are visible on the diff of this edit as constructs like {{#if: ... }}, and there are seven of them, all associated with the talk page link:

<span style="font-family:{{#if: |{{{font}}}|sans-serif}};font-size:{{#if: 118% |118%|100%}};color:{{#if: blue |blue|black}};background-color:{{#if: |{{{bgcolor}}}|transparent}};{{#if: |title:{{{title}}}|}};{{#if: |{{{css}}}|}}">{{#if: |{{{1}}}|[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|C<small style="font-size:85%;">LIMAX</small>!]]}}</span>

Please would you amend your signature so that these are expanded right out, e.g. to

<span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:118%;color:blue;background-color:transparent;;">[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|C<small style="font-size:85%;">LIMAX</small>!]]</span>

This will also go some way to making your signature shorter - it's presently 508 character of code, so is almost twice the permitted maximum length of 255 chars. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Redrose64 – yes, and thank you! See if this isn't better:

• – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX!

That's hot off the ~~~ oven. – Paine  21:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Neither of them have parser functions, so that's good. The second of these is 159 characters of code, so is OK; the first is 297 characters, so is still on the long side. You can cut that down by using the following techniques:

• replace – with the actual – character, which saves 6 characters

Setting a font-size on a <small> nullifies the tag, so the styling might as well be on the next element in, so

• move the font-size:85%; from the first <small> to the next <span>, remove the <small style=""> and matching </small>, which saves 24 chars

when a <span>...</span> is inside another element, consider merging them:

• change the first <span>...</span> to <b>...</b> and remove the triple apostrophes that enclose the link, saving 12 chars

This gives

• – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX!

which looks just the same but is 255 characters of code. You can save six more chars: remove the space immediately before font-family; remove the last semicolon from each of the three style="..." attributes; alter the remaining <small>...</small> pair to <span>...</span> so I think that 249 is possible. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

How about now? – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 23:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine, 250 exactly (I miscounted the semicolons). --Redrose64 (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Cool! and again, thank you! – Paine  06:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Question

Sorry for harassing you but it is possible to make a category with articles that have the |currentteam parameter blank in the NFL infobox. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

To editor WikiOriginal-9: As I've shown in the template sandbox, if a category titled Category:NFL empty or missing currentteam parameter articles were to be created and set equal to the #default= parameter, any NFL player ibox that has either an empty or missing currentteam param would populate that category. Have you come across a lot of these? Do most of the coaches show a current team? Also, what about those players that still have {{Infobox gridiron football person}} in their articles and are now either coaching or playing in the pros? I'm really no sports expert, so forgive me if my questions show my ignorance. – Paine  06:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thx, there are a lot of free agents that do not have anything listed in the |currentteam param. Additionaly, there are many former players that still have the currentteam in their infobox. Also, ignore that merge thing on the gridiron person, it was pretty much a mistake. The gridiron person is used for most Canadian Football League players. Also, some coaches use the NFL coach infobox and I think they all show a currentteam. If you make the currentteam empty category don't have the instances appear as "Free agent." There are many former players with a blank currentteam. Also, I don't want the ones that have a missing currentteam categorized. All former players have their currentteam parameter removed, ex. Jerry Rice. Thx WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've altered the template sandbox to populate Category:NFL empty currentteam parameter articles (only "empty", no "missing"). I came across one coach that does not have a currentteam parameter, Earl McCullouch. It's confusing because his article has nothing about his being a coach; however, his infobox on the template testcases page shows him as a coach. I'm not sure if his article needs to be updated, or if someone just used his testcases infobox to test the coaching parameters. Even if there are coaches that don't have a currentteam parameter in their infobox it should be okay, because when I tested the sandbox, the only time the empty category is populated is when the currentteam param is empty. If the currentteam param is missing, then nothing happens and no category is populated.

If you would like to test this yourself, you can't use the testcases page because it suppresses the categories. You have to go to an article like Joe Adams (wide receiver) and use his infobox (only to click Show preview). Just change the ibox name to Infobox NFL player/sandbox. That way you can preview your edits, and each time you make a change you'll see what happens to the categories at the bottom of the page. On the other hand, if you're ready to "go live" now, let me know and I'll proceed. – Paine 

The one above the Earl McCullouch, Renaldo Nehemiah also has coach stuff. These are just tests/examples. You can make it live if you want now. Thanks WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done – Paine  18:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, pretty sure that's everything. This is a big help once again lol. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Pleasure! – Paine 

To editor WikiOriginal-9: FYI – I just tried to edit the /doc subpage of {{Infobox NFL player}} to reflect the updated usage and my edit was reverted by editor Bagumba. Seems Bagumba doesn't like "Retired" appearing in the iboxes, so that editor also deleted the "Retired" parameter and its category link to Category:NFL Retired currentteam parameter articles. If the present instructions for the currentteam field are followed, then the new category I created is going to fill up with retirees. I'm neutral on the matter, but you might want to discuss it with that editor at WT:NFL. – Paine 

Yeah, Retired isn't supposed to be in the infobox, thanks though. I am putting the category back in the infobox. It is used to remove "Retired" from articles. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! and Question

Hey thanks for the revision on Good Faith. Wasn't aware of WP:RED, new here!
A user recently expanded the good faith in law section, and that section links to Good faith (law) the main article. It almost seems like too much info to me. Is there a Wikipedia guideline page, that perhaps describes the general amount of info appropriate for a section that links to another main article?
—Lightgodsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No problemo, Lightgodsy – we've all made mistakes like that, in fact, I made the very same mistake about red links in the beginning. As for how much info in a section, from what I've read only a brief summary of the subject is usually desired and from what I've seen, that summary is usually just a single brief paragraph. Since the Good faith article begins with its usage in both philosophy and law, I would say that the article badly needs a section on the philosophy aspect. There is a very brief treatment of the subject of section expansion on the documentation page of the {{Main}} template. Joys! – Paine  01:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Rfdm template

I suggest the best place for this to be discussed is at WP:RFD. Si Trew (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

If the "this" to which you allude is the discussion at Template talk:This is a redirect, and if RFD is a place to disposition redirects, then how do you figure? Why not give me time to address your concerns? The template has been around for a long, long time, and I have worked on it for a long time, so let me get back to your concerns on that talk page and see if I can't shed some light on this for you. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 02:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done it now

Thanks, I've tried again and just put the square brackets around something less ambiguous as you suggested and it's worked. Thanks for all your help Zinedine Socrates (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Colombus

Paine, why did you think the picture added by User:Crisco 1492 was inferior? Is it because of the frame?

The picture is at the Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Christopher Columbus right now. The file you reverted to is only 1,603 × 1,928 pixels -so that couldn't possibly be nominated as a Featured picture. Those must be minimum 1500pxX 1500px, that is a requirement. It is also in PNG, and artificially lightened. My guess is that you have issues with the frame, right? But if we cropp that, would it be OK to have the other one? That one is comming directly from the museum, it is 4,390 × 5,325 pixels, file size: 8.11 MB -and has a better, much higher resolution and colors. What do you think. Hafspajen (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Hafspajen – Yes, the frame was part of it, though a small part. My main concern was the inferior contrast. The FP candidate is darker and there is less contrast between lights and darks. I pulled up both files side by side. If you do the same, I really don't see how you or anyone would call the FP file superior (just to look at them). If one could get the contrasts equal, then even the frame would become a non-issue. Joys! – Paine  18:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• The different Christopher Columbus
• 
• 

• Well, I think it has to do a little bit with the Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. More extensive manipulation should be clearly described in the image text... and Any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented is unacceptable.

• File:Christopher Columbus.PNG is artificially lightened. And there is an other thing. While at thumb size they look almost the same, they are not the same if enlarged. The File:Christopher Columbus.PNG is blurry, it looked at at high resolution. While File:Portrait of a Man, Said to be Christopher Columbus.jpg is clearer, you can check click on it when enlarged, you can notice the brus-strokes clearly on the sleaves and shirt, for example. The other one has only a flat white field of color. It is this kind of differences we use to look at Featured pictures. Maybe CorinneSD or Crisco 1492 can explain it better than I do. Hafspajen (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what to say, except that I know what I like, and in my opinion, just to look at the two images side-by-side like that, the image on the right above is superior in terms of contrast and lighting. I have spent a few hours on the left image in my Corel, retained the hi-res and despeckled a bit, but I suppose there is no use in uploading that one if "artificially lightened" leads to "misrepresentation" of Columbus. Personally, I don't think better quality lighting misrepresents, but indeed enhances the subject. I would guess that to most readers of Wikipedia, the image on the left above, while it may have achieved FP status, is still inferior to the image on the right, which is the status quo image for the article on Columbus. Feel free to begin a discussion on his talk page to see what others think. – Paine  21:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand how you think. However if nominated, the image to the right would not satisfy the voters on FP. Because the image dosn't look like its source. I can post that beside the other as an alt... just to check what they say, if you want. Hafspajen (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As one who is more concerned with what WP readers might want over what expert FP voters would like, it might be better for Crisco 1492 to launch an RfC on the Columbus talk page. I have left a comment at the candidate page. – Paine  21:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

OK. Hafspajen (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

To editors Hafspajen, Crisco 1492 and P. S. Burton: I've invited you to my talk page to compare the three images of the great Christopher Columbus (well, believed to be him).

The Different Christopher Columbus

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3

1. File:Portrait of a Man, Said to be Christopher Columbus.jpg
2. File:Portrait of a Man, Said to be Christopher Columbus_2.jpg
3. File:Christopher Columbus.PNG

I just added the middle image to his article in hopes that we will all agree that it is the best rendition of the 1519 portrait. Thank you for coming. – Paine  17:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• The middle image is, IMHO, the right direction, but a bit too far — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I take that as a huge compliment. When I started over from scratch, one of my concerns was the collar. At first everything I did overwhitened it. So it was a great learning experience for me, and I am sorry if I took it a bit too far due to overfocusing on keeping the collar's textured appearance. – Paine  18:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

To editor Crisco 1492: Also, please take into consideration that this is still essentially your image. So of course you may do with it as you see fit. I came in at the last minute and made a few minor alterations, so if there is any credit for it, you definitely should get all of it. – Paine 

All the rest of the template:infobox planet stuff

I've been looking for a number of other changes for template:infobox planet but I figured that requesting so many changes separately would seem kind of like I'm trying to make your work hard so I delayed until now. Here are a few of the changes I've been looking for for a while.

After epoch (see source code)

| data23 = | label24 = Observation arc length | data24 =

--several sections later--

| label51 = Distance from the Sun | data51 =

exoplanetaryscience (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

To editor Exoplanetaryscience: There is aphelion, perihelion and sm axis, so why does the template need "distance from the Sun"? If the ibox is in a planet's satellite article, isn't its distance from the Sun easily found in the primary's ibox? – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 17:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

My purpose for current distance from Sun was mainly made for a number of objects in the Solar System that have large eccentricities, and as such vary quite largely in their distance from the Sun over time. It was so that I could know whether objects such as 20461 Dioretsa are 2 astronomical units, or 45 astronomical units from the sun, or somewhere in between (it's actually currently ~26.8 AU from the sun) so the purpose of the option was to tell the current distance, not available from the JPL small-body database, where most orbits are taken from, but can be found at many places such as AstDyS or Celestia. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, it's in the sandbox, so if that is what you want, let me know or change it. I called the 2nd addition "Current distance from sun" with data "distance_from_sun". Questions do arise as to who will keep up with the changes and how – and also what happens if that editor leaves Wikipedia? (I'm not crazy about these timliness items that quickly or relatively quickly become dated). – Paine  23:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Well frankly most of the parameters in infobox planet are changing things, as perturbations can change any of the six orbital elements, along with orbital precession constantly changing longitude of ascending node, and mean anomaly constantly changing on epoch. Aside from that, apparent magnitude is ever-changing. That is the purpose of the epoch inclusion, to indicate the orbital elements at a specific date, usually near that of the last update to the article. As such, like magnitude, the distance from the sun would be expected to roughly coincide with the given epoch, unless specified.

Another topic I think I should touch on regarding current distance, is that some objects in infobox planet aren't necessarily orbiting the Sun, which might be an issue, but there is of course the option of simply not including it.

Also, I made the edits to your sandbox draft that I wanted to correct. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

So I'll feel more comfortable (from a technical standpoint), I've sought the counsel of other template editors on the Ibox talk page. Feel free to comment there. Joys! – Paine  03:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, exoplanetaryscience, I have included Uncertainty and Observation arc length in the ibox, so this is partially done. Other editors didn't seem to feel that the ibox is ready, yet, for a Current distance from the Sun parameter, so you might want to see if you can encourage them a bit. Joys! – Paine  17:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Template

Hi. Could you have a look at the {{Thomas Paine}} template when you have some time, I've added quite a few items but don't totally know if I got them right chronologically or in the right sections, and you may know of more pages to add. It would be nice to really submerge myself in his work for awhile, I've never done that so I don't have a decent mental map of the subject (such as when he was actively in the National Convention and when he was absent due to imprisonment and other folly. Interesting he escaped death just because the guy chalked the wrong side of the door!). Thanks, and it's been nice meeting you around the town square here. Randy Kryn 3:42 31 January, 2015 (UTC)

Looks very good, Randy Kryn. Perhaps consider linking to Deism in the Related section. Evidently you already know not to use redirects in Navbar templates. Maybe the image could be a little smaller so as not to underemphasize the rest of the Navbar. I like it. Maybe pick up a few more links while reading his articles. He is one of my favorite historic characters. – Paine  11:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and have added your suggestions. Yes, he is one I'll study more. I've never read "Common Sense" (or seem to have any at times), unless I was 'made to' in high school and have no memory of it. No family articles that I can see. Hopefully a few more pages will turn up which are 'template worthy' (I just removed a popular culture item from the 'Foley Square' page because it concerned the filming of an advertisement, with the comment that it wasn't 'Popular culture worthy'). If the template gets better maybe you'd consider bringing it out of the navbox stack on the Paine page (most bio pages I've seen with subject templates have them 'popped out' of navbox stacks, if those stacks exist). I'll keep looking for more pages, and in the process accidently educate myself, which is one of the better things about liking/working on templates. Haven't said it before, and will just say it once so as not to flatter, but your signature is one of the better ones I've seen on Wikipedia so thank you for that too. Now, back to the coal mine. Randy Kryn 13:40 31 January, 2015 (UTC)

The Common Sense pamphlet can now be found in libraries in very small book form. I tell you that because you might want to get a copy in order to feel the full effect of Paine's jarring words. I've read it twice, but the first time I was left wondering how it could have had such a widespread effect on people. Then I read more about it and realized that I had to read it again, this time imagining that I was a literate storekeeper in a small village. It was a beautiful evening in early Spring, and I had gathered together the people in the village and from the surrounding farms in front of my store. Most of those people had not been taught to read, so I stood on the boardwalk and read to them Paine's brief but powerful polemic against monarchy, in general, and the British monarchy, in particular. In my imaginings, the effect on those people was immediate. Those who had been on the fence about fighting for freedom jumped down and joined the rest, who wanted independence, but who had not felt they were part of a larger whole. That type of response happened all over the colonies. After that second reading of the pamphlet, I was able to get a glimpse into what those people must have felt. I'm certain there were other factors that led our ancestors into the war of freedom from tyranny; however, Paine's little pamphlet was the "straw that broke the camel's back". Joys! – Paine  19:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Well you sure make it come alive! I'm glad I haven't read it yet, and will do so with your experience in mind. That's how I watch many older movies, pre-1940, pretending I'm of the era and seeing it in a theater. The depression events of the 1930s were countered by many "Be happy, money means nothing" movies, dancing Shirley Temple around the screen, the timing of the Marx Brothers entering into 'talkies' just when they were needed, not to mention King Kong coming at ya (after seeing that fellow a couple of missed meals didn't seem so bad). Recently, during an italics run, I came across the page What Is the Third Estate?, read and researched it for awhile, and, after realizing it was probably the French Revolutions' equivalent pamphlet to Common Sense (or close enough for comfort), went and popped it into the appropriate place on the French Revolution template. Italic runs contain things like that more often than not. Thanks for your insights. Question, are you by any chance going to Selma for the 50th anniversary of the Selma to Montgomery march? I think a few Wikipedia editors might show up there. Randy Kryn 11:58 1 February (Super Bowl Sunday), 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for complements and for asking about travel to Selma! These days my health allows only minimum journeys outside my home, so I can visit such celebrations in spirit, if not otherwise. Joys! – Paine 

Ochre

The Ochre article has a tag for American English, yet you have made changes for British spelling. Which should it be?--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiGnomes like me ask such questions, and invite editors like you to join the WikiGnome cabal.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

When I come across articles that are tagged per WP:ENGVAR with the American or British spelling notice, I don't usually check into the history of the article. At the time I made those changes, and even up until today, the edit screen for the article still had the British spelling notice at the top. The editor who reverted my spelling changes, PaleAqua, noted that the article stub had been begun in American English. That editor also placed the American English notice on the talk page, but was apparently unable for some reason to change the edit notice for article edits. I checked the stub article, which was started with this edit and found that the reverter was correct. I just now converted the edit notice from British to American spelling. So PaleAqua's reverts of my spelling changes were correct, and the article is written in the American spelling variation.

Thank you for the invite to join! I've been a gnome for most of my edits, and basically like very much to make improvements in the background, such as to redirects, dab pages and templates, all of which have WikiProjects that I have joined. Joys! – Paine  18:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix to the edit notice. I never got around to getting template editor so can't edit edit notices myself. PaleAqua (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a pleasure, PaleAqua, and that's easy enough to fix. Just a quick read of the granting guidelines, and then go to this page to get the user right granted. Piece o' cake – upside down. – Paine 

I'm kinda aware of the requirements for template editor as I helped suggest them :) but like being a wikisloth and getting that bit would encourage me to do more template work than I have the long term energy for. Already burnt out once, going slow this time. PaleAqua (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Got it. Joys! – Paine 

Email notice

Nope, didn't send, and got reverted back to my account. Either the Wikipedia coding is off or ghosts in the machine. Randy Kryn 20:44 1 February, 2015 (UTC)

Curious. Try sending directly to starswirler at aol.com – (I'm an astronomy lover.) – Paine 

Nope, this was copied off my failure notice saying it's a permanent error: starswirler@aol.com (and you best delete this entire section before the roaming net bots grab it for spam purposes) Randy Kryn 20:54 1 February, 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I still get email there, and good spam filters take care of the web spiders. – Paine 

Hello Paine, and Randy Kryn. I have been enduring similar problems, and finally asked a technical question at the village pump. The answer involves matters that are adversely affecting many users, and it seems that the information is not as widely assimilated as it should be, or needs to be. Anyway, I think you both will be helped by reading that thread,[1] and glad to know the things you may end up learning. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, John, that was all very enlightening! Thank you very much! – Paine 

Joseph Conrad

Hi, Paine -- I just wonder what your feeling is regarding the need for a comma after a short prepositional phrase at the beginning of a sentence. I think that when it's a two-word prepositional phrase, or "in" or "on" with a date, unless there is a special need for clarity, a comma is not needed. If it's a date in the American style, with the year, the second comma is needed, but if it's in the British style, I don't think a comma is always needed. I've been discussing this with Rothorpe at User talk:Rothorpe#Joseph Conrad after I saw [2], and I just thought I'd ask you for your opinion. CorinneSD (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, CorinneSD – I may be the wrong person to ask, because I actually loathe commas even when they should be used. Generally, though, and especially when I edit, I try to be more objective, (darn, just LOOK at all those dern commas ) so I think about whether a pause is natural or not, if the leading prepositional phrase is more or less than four words, and so on. The edit you use as an example is just a bit iffy; however, I would probably side with the admin just to keep the sentence as clear as possible. I could be wrong. Joys! – Paine 

Thanks for your thoughts. I use commas only when really needed (but I know that's often a subjective decision). In the example, I would not use a comma. It now totals six commas in a not particularly long sentence. But I hesitate to argue with an admin. CorinneSD (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Arguing is never a good thing, and yet admins are people, too, and the vast majority I've met are very nice people and would gladly share their thoughts with you, even about the smallest things, such as those tiny full stops with tails. Just a thought. – Paine 

Thanks, Paine. I'll give it some thought. CorinneSD (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15