User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Archive 26
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 |
The Signpost: 13 February 2024
- News and notes: Wikimedia Russia director declared "foreign agent" by Russian gov; EU prepares to pile on the papers
- Disinformation report: How low can the scammers go?
- Serendipity: Is this guy the same as the one who was a Nazi?
- Traffic report: Griselda, Nikki, Carl, Jannik and two types of football
- Crossword: Our crossword to bear
- Comix: Strongly
Closure requests
Hey @Paine Ellsworth, thanks for the ping here. I happened to be on the page and noticed one was closed, so I figure I might as well mark it as done! Guess it's not like the pages I'm used to elsewhere, such as WP:PERM, where a {{done}} is good enough and the bot archives based on that. I've made a mental note of it so I don't make that mistake again in the future. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's all good, editor Hey man im josh. It actually is the closing template that spurs on the archive bot. Setting done=yes alone will not get the entry archived, but it does show at a glance that when the color is gone, so is the entry. All good, and thank you for coming to my talk page! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
What other arguments do you think should I have used to prove that there's no point to this move there? --Joy (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi editor Joy, it's good to see you here! Good question, because your args were quite strong, yet the nom and other supporter appeared to be unconvinced. I'm not sure how I would go about rephrasing, maybe somehow condensing, or finding other good reasons for opposing. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Well, then I'm not convinced we agree on how WP:DETCON works.
Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
The quality of the arguments is key, not how many people are convinced, especially when so few of us were involved. 162 etc. made a request. I argued against it - in your words quite strongly. If this was outside of the RM process, per WP:BRD we would have left it at status quo. BilledMammal saw the discussion and relisted it without comment. Amakuru said the original request seems fine, made another kind of argument, I argued against that, and they didn't respond. 162 etc. and myself continued to disagree in the followup. How is this not a classic case of WP:NOCONSENSUS then? Can I ask you to reconsider, please? (When article title discussions end without consensus, the applicable policy preserves the most recent stable title.
) --Joy (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Well, then I'm not convinced we agree on how WP:DETCON works.
- We agree then that the quality of the arguments is key, and in this case it led me to move the page and refocus the new redirect. At the time of the close I detected a consensus to move the page. I still do. Thank you again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 07:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Chris Williams (metal drummer)
What is the reason that you closed this move discussion instead of relisting? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- With two editors ready to challenge notability at AfD, I saw no reason to drag things out. If the article survives AfD, then I would be okay with a fresh RM. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 07:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Rcat query
Hi Paine Ellsworth! I came across your edit here, and I was wondering why you removed the {{R from subpage}} rcat from that redirect. (The reason I ask is because I was going to add it myself, but then noticed that you'd removed it relatively recently.)
All the best :) —a smart kitten[meow] 01:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi A smart kitten, and thank you for coming! The subpage rcat template was removed because there are no subpages in mainspace. Articles at one time had subpages, but that feature has been turned off in mainspace. So remaining redirects that were once subpages have either been deleted or are now treated like OS/2 or Providence/Stoughton Line. If you go to the Afghanistan article, click on "Page information", where any subpages would be linked, there are no subpages. So that redirect, which does not target the Afghanistan article, is certainly not a subpage of the Afghan Armed Forces article it now targets, nor of the previous targets Armed Forces of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and Military of Afghanistan. If a redirect is not a subpage of its target article, then it should not be tagged as such even if the solidus is present in the title. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response! Please correct me if I'm wrong, but by my understanding, the {{R from subpage}} rcat could be used in mainspace where the page in question was a subpage in a historical version of Wikipedia - from the template docs, if it's used in mainspace, it will populate Category:Redirects with old history. In any event, as this redirect is definitely an {{R with old history}}, I guess it's just a question of which template to use :)
- All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 02:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Well, again, that redirect is not a subpage of its target article. Since it was created back in 2001, the {{R with old history}} rcat template is appropriate. Not sure why I didn't tag it as such – I guess it was because there really wasn't much old editing history involved with that redirect. YMMV. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Great Britain rugby league links/doc
Template:Great Britain rugby league links/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process.
- Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.
Technical news
- The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)
Miscellaneous
- The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
- Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.
Pakeha settlers
I've prepared an administrator-close of the Pākehā settlers requested move. Please read it, and if you feel that it better analyzes the case, I'd appreciate it if you could voluntarily vacate your close so that I could take over and close that one. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- You went to a lot of work on that one! Your words are certainly a much more thorough analysis of the survey, and I do sincerely appreciate it. Curious about two things: first, have you seen Sceptre's most recent endorse rationale at the bottom of the MRV? How would that affect your proposal? Second, what would then be done with the MRV discussion? Since the outcome of the RM does not actually change, the MRV would still remain open until someone closes it as no consensus. Would it not be better just to close the MRV? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I sense that there may be a "culture war" aspect to this – I haven't been keeping a close eye on RM discussions on New Zealand topics, though. This move review is a trainwreck, the vote is running 9–9 or 10-9 against endorsing your close. I hate to see "no consensus" move reviews. Looking at the instructions, "If the MRV closer finds that there is no consensus in the move review, then in most cases this has the same effect as Endorse Close and no action is required on the article title. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; MRV closers may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate." I'd like to treat the "no consensus" as a "request for another close", and then re-close it myself. Then see whether my close helps move the needle a bit off of "no consensus". – wbm1058 (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm definitely amenable to that. And it is hoped that the involved editors will then informally discuss the issue on the talk page rather than take your closure to MRV. Thank you for your help in this! I will proceed to vacate my RM close. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 2 March 2024
- News and notes: Wikimedia enters US Supreme court hearings as "the dolphin inadvertently caught in the net"
- Recent research: Images on Wikipedia "amplify gender bias"
- In the media: The Scottish Parliament gets involved, a wikirace on live TV, and the Foundation's CTO goes on record
- Obituary: Vami_IV
- Traffic report: Supervalentinefilmbowlday
- WikiCup report: High-scoring WikiCup first round comes to a close
"Template:R from subtitle" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Template:R from subtitle has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 4 § Template:R from subtitle until a consensus is reached.
(Notifying you as you participated in a previous discussion at Template talk:R from subtitle.) All the best. —a smart kitten[meow] 10:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the heads up, editor a smart kitten! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 12:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Your close here is very brief; can you expand on it and summarize the discussion? In particular, the level of support for the alternative "South Africa v. Israel"? BilledMammal (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- To editor BilledMammal: yes, my closes are usually concise; however, I would be glad to elaborate. I saw arguments on both sides that seemed very compelling with an overwhelming number of oppose rationales against the proposed title. A significant number of opposing editors favored dropping the parenthetical dab; however, most editors, some expressly, favored keeping it. Thank you very much for coming! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 12:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Uh... genuinely curious, what is this and why is it in the template space? Primefac (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- To editor Primefac: wow, from six years ago, and I sometimes have a problem remembering six days ago. <g> Let's see, what it is – it's just a reminder piece I use to help the more newly registered editors who happen to read my RM closures, where I link it in my closing statement. I think I put it in template space to make it more obvious that it could be transcluded. I see presently that's [only happened once], so if you think I should userfy it rather than leave it in template space, I'll be happy to. Thank you very much for coming! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- PS. Also, I see that I tied it in to the Clickable button template as a subpage. Guess I wanted it to be close to the button template for some reason. Ah well. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- To editor Primefac: this has been moved to User:Paine Ellsworth/Clickable button – Publish buttons and is no longer in template space. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 2000s/doc
Template:Terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 2000s/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report
Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report
 Our 2023 Annual Report is now ready for review.
Highlights:
– Your Guild coordinators:
Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
Please remove flags and icons from {{Federal holidays in the United States}} and {{California topic}} per WP:NAVIMAGES, because its merely decorative. Unlike this, and this proposal that came to the unanimous conclusion that flags and seals do not belong in navboxes.
103.231.177.120 (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Tucson Radio/doc
Template:Tucson Radio/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. DrChuck68 (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:University of Oxford/doc
Template:University of Oxford/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Exo/doc
Template:Exo/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I see you moved Atomic theory -> History of atomic theory. I'd like to understand how this decision was made. I have been puzzled by the WP:CONSENSUS. As far as I can tell based on other discussions, a single dissenting vote was sufficient to prevent action. In the case of Atomic theory three were for the move and two against with one withdrawn "for move" vote based on the opposition arguments. Based on other things I seen I assumed there was no consensus. Where was my analysis off-base? Johnjbarton (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi editor Johnjbarton, and thank you for coming to my talk page! In that move request I read strong arguments on both sides with a bit more support than you apparently sensed. There was enough support to overcome the opposition to result in consensus to move.
- Supporters
- editors ReyHahn (the nom), Johnjbarton (you "Strongly Agree"d), Kurzon, Synpath and TheBooker66
- Opposers
- editors Headbomb and Ajrocke
- On Wikipedia, a single dissenting !vote is only enough to prevent action if it is a darn good, policy-based argument, and supporters have weak args. All things considered, it appears that consensus was built to rename the article in this case. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for this explanation. Can you help me with two other mysteries? What set the time scale for making these decisions? Who is authorized to make them? Thanks! Johnjbarton (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you again, editor Johnjbarton, and it's my pleasure to help in any way! There is no "set" time scale for deciding to move a page or not, with the sole exception to be a formal request such as this one. There is a fairly well-set minimum of seven days for move requests. After that editors can close them at any time. A relist usually lasts an additional seven days, however if consensus is reached sooner, say in two or three days, then any editor can close the move request.
- Pretty much any registered editor is authorized to close move requests; although, if one is a non-admin, then it helps to build experience starting with the seemingly more obvious decisions. Even then it is possible to make mistakes from which to learn. And the more experience one gains, the better decisions one makes. (Well, generally
) If you are interested in becoming a closer of move requests, then it will help to begin by reading WP:RM and WP:RMCI. To become a "page mover", see WP:PGM. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Ranks for plant higher taxa
Sadly there's complete inconsistency in the literature over the ranks of the higher taxa for plants. However, many of our taxonomy templates treat taxa like Cycadophyta, Ginkgophyta, Gnetophyta, Lycopodiophyta, Pinophyta or Pteridophyta at the rank of division. Hence Tracheophytes cannot, in the taxonomy templates, be treated as a phylum, because this produces inconsistent ranks. If you change the rank of a 'high up' taxonomy template, it's important to check Category:Taxonomy templates showing anomalous ranks some time later (it takes a while for the system to catch up with such changes, as I suspect you know). The category had about ten entries just now before I reverted your edit and made null edits on the affected taxonomy templates. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Peter! I wondered about that after reading the previous posts on the talk page, but I went by what the Tracheophyta article said, which until editor Plantdrew removed it on the 22nd, called it a phylum. Apologies for my screw-up. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it's not exactly a "screw-up", but a symptom of a problem with the automated taxobox system when there is no agreed overall classification, and experts in different groups of plants use inconsistent ranks. I have thought about automatic fixes, e.g. when working upwards from the target taxon, substituting "unranked" or "clade" if an inconsistent rank is found above the target taxon, but this is maybe a step too far. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks again, Peter, and for your encouraging words! Sounds like a gnarly problem, and I don't envy the continuing need to deal with it. I sincerely hope that a good and helpful solution is on the horizon. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Want to add that your Herculean efforts to manage these things does not go unnoticed! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)