This is an archive of past discussions with User:Paine Ellsworth. 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.
On morning of 9 Feb, my friends, I undergo an operation. I am hopeful that I will be back soon and see you again. Wikipedia Rocks! happy editing and Joys! – Paine
Good luck and prayers to and for you. Nice work on the movement talk page event. I'll watchpage your talk page for news about your healthy and happy return. Randy Kryn 13:44 9 February, 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both so much! Made it through okay. Will probably stick more closely to the gnomish for a bit. Thank you again, both of you, for the radiant gravity of your thoughts! – Paine
Good for you. My non-medical authority advice: drink lots and lots of water, take 3 to 4 grams of Vitamin C spread out through the day, go vegan, and if that's not enough, Co-Q 10 is a friend to our closest friends - the mitochondria. And ice cream (or it's vegan equv. Rice Dream!). Randy Kryn 20:15 11 February, 2015 (UTC)
To editor CorinneSD: By the way, thank you for thinking of me in regard to your discussion with Rothorpe about the Neanderthal article. It's being a bit of a climb for me, so I have been trying to stick to the simplest edits. I still have a few more days of taking Prednisone, so my mind is often "out there" where I have a tough time finding it. Again, thank you and Happy Editing! – Paine
You're welcome! How are you doing today? When you feel up to it, could you read my comments at User talk:Rothorpe#Tacitus (near the "Neanderthal" section)? Also, do you look at the nominations for Featured Picture? You can vote, and in the process of voting and reading the comments, you can learn a lot about images. It's a low-stress activity. Go to Wikipedia#Featured picture candidates and scroll down to "Current nominations". CorinneSD (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Today is a better day (and they're getting "better and better"). I shall be happy to read your comments; however, I can make no promises. It is my understanding of what I read that is (hopefully temporarily) suffering. Lately I have been a bit disenchanted with the whole Featured picture process. Look up the page at #Colombus to see why. Don't worry, because right now it's hard to tell from where my thoughts and words emanate. – Paine
I'm glad you're feeling better. It must be a little frustrating for a normally clear-headed person to have trouble understanding what you read. On the other hand, that state might be somewhat pleasant, kind of like in Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates#L'Absinthe. Thanks for the link to the Coué article. I skimmed it, but will read it in full at some point. I had already seen that discussion regarding the C. Columbus image. I have seen similar discussions at FP, but, besides learning from the other editors, I've noticed that nominations don't always come out the way you think they will. The discussion seems to be going one way, but then surprisingly comes around to the opposite outcome. There are quite a few participants, and they're not always the same ones, and not all are "experts". They each contribute something to the discussion. (I realize your eyes might glaze over at this long comment, so I won't expect a response. Take it easy.) CorinneSD (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
...and thank you – having to choose among all those beautiful images was extremely stressful! (jus' kiddin') Joys! – Paine17:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
First, I'm glad you're not mad at me for what I said at Tac. Second, I'm glad you voted for best FP. I just voted before I saw your choices here. There were so many photos that I really liked, it was hard to choose. I liked the ones you chose, but I voted for three different ones:
Oh yes, those are also awesome images! Having come from the mountains, but not raised in them nor ever having lived in them, I find their mystical appearance draws me in many ways. The Amanitas are some of the most beautiful and toxic shrooms in the world, yet I've heard of those people who can eat them with no harmful effect. And penguins! well, they are definitely entrancing creatures! Great choices! – Paine04:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Now I see your inclusion of "printworthiness" boilerplate in the {{R to joint biography}} documentation one year ago, and same for {R from member} two years ago [1]. --thereby included in those two redirect category messages.
The other subcats of {R from people} do not say any such thing and the statement does not fit any of them because {R from people} is in {R with possiblities}.
Thank you very much, P64! I'm still a bit fuzzy about all this (just finished the Prednisone yesterday), and I do appreciate your taking your time to make these issues more meaningful for others. I made that recent change as the result of a forward thrust to find and update all the rcats that need it, and I wouldn't be surprised if I made some errors. So I'm very thankful for editors like yourself who give their time to help with the intricate detail of redirect categorization. Thus far I can detect nothing in your edits that did not need to be done. Thank you again and Joys! – Paine17:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Metadata links are found at the bottom of many file pages and link to tables, anchors and sections that hold the versions of, in this case, PaintShop Pro. So anytime one contemplates a sweeping edit to an article like PaintShop Pro, one must take these metadata links into account. The links are made by use of redirects, so examples are found in Category:Redirects from file metadata links. There are a lot more that haven't yet been linked, for example File:Glade Creek Grist Mill.jpg, which has a "Software used" red link. I'll work on that when I get back from my appointment. Joys! – Paine19:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I found only one link even partially broken, and this was only because you had created it in such a way as to be likely to break by targeting a section rather than the top of the article.
What specific evidence is there that the edit "breaks a lot of metadata links from media files" (emphasis mine), as you claimed?
Given that we are here to create an encyclopedia ("that anyone can edit"), do you think that it is good practice to create these redirects in such a way as to then create a reason why articles cannot be edited?
What I think is good practice is to help readers who read a file page, come to a software link and click on the link to be taken to an explanation for the particular software version that is linked. If the version is, say, "6.0", then Wikipedia readers should not be taken to the TOP of an article that has explanations for v6.0 and 20 or 30 other versions; readers should not be made to "hunt" for the v6.0, they should click the 6.0 link and be taken right to the table anchor or section of the software article that describes and explains about v6.0. You and I as editors are not here to build an encyclopedia for you and I and other editors, are we? I thought we were here for our readers – aren't we? – Paine22:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll repeat my question. Where is your evidence that a lot of metadata links were broken by the edit? Samsara22:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
It's no use, apparently. I provided you with an entire category of known metadata links. Every time I check that cat I find broken links due to editors' wholesale removal of sections. In your case, you placed the info in another page, a list I believe. But did you bother to think about how many links from image files might be broken and would need to be retargeted to the list page? Most editors who make such changes don't bother and leave it to others to clean up. Samsara, if you won't look at the evidence I've already presented, it's no use to present any more. You appear to be trying to justify unjustifiable edits. If you fail to see that after all I've said, then I really don't know what else to tell you. It's a matter of understanding the impact of this type of edit. It's as bad as altering a section header and not leaving an anchor for the old section header. One never knows precisely how many links, both wikilinks and other Internet links are broken. And all you have to do is change a section header to wreak havoc. If you cannot see this from the eyes of our readers, then what hope is there? – Paine
I have looked at the evidence. It's you who reverted without doing so. I have told you that there was one single section-targeted redirect affected. That would have cost you 10 seconds to fix. And if you don't know how to check how many redirects are broken, then you are not editing competently. But here's the irony: after being broken, the redirect was targeting what it should have been targeting in the beginning: the top of the article. Because it serves readers poorly to be sent to a list of features for that specific version (which, btw, the section target didn't actually do exactly, either) without knowing what PSP is in the first place, i.e. being given an opportunity to read the lede.
What I see is you reverting without much thought and then using such hyperbolic phrases as "wreak havoc" to accuse others and justify what you've done. Over a single broken section target that made no sense in the first place. I'm trying to make you see that it's not worth disrupting the editing process for this kind of metadata micro-management. By reverting without looking into the exact circumstances, you did exactly what you accuse - left others to clean up after you. The bottom line is that you have no authority to effectively block all edits to such articles, which is what you're implying. I spend a lot of time copy-editing others' contributions in one way or another. It's part of the life here. It may be better to accept that. Samsara08:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Accept that? That is precisely what I did when I reverted your edit. How many other articles have you done this to? How many other times have you broken important metadata links? You are wrong editing like that, absolutely wrong to go about breaking links, whether it's one link or fifty. Just that one link should show you how wrong you are, but instead you insist on rationalizing your position by belittling the importance of metadata links, belittling the intelligence of readers, who by going to versions will know where to look for them even after they scroll to the top to read the lead, and by belittling me, who is merely trying to increase the positive connections between the neurons in your brain. What you do when you make edits that may break one link or hundreds of links is make it harder for readers to find that for which they search. Be so proud of yourself! – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX!03:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
The article is not concise in the state that you insist it must be left in. Accusing me of excess conservatism when you're the one reverting is hardly logical. If you do want to learn something from this, it might be that your actions - first the slightly peculiar section targeting, then the revert insisting that one single such link must be maintained and targeting the new article or top of the article would not be satisfactory and "break a lot of metadata" as well as "wreak havoc", and finally confessing that you don't know how to look up the number of files affected (2120 at current count), are going to generate lengthy debate, now and in future. And my brain is fine, thank you very much. I'm still hopeful that a little civility wouldn't hurt you. In any case, it's becoming clear that you're not willing to work on fixing the situation, so I'll go ahead and continue making progress, hopefully without further interference. Samsara06:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
You just don't see it, do you. I have "confessed" nothing except a desire to improve this reference work! The articles need PRECISION, and if conciseness suffers then it must suffer for the sake of precision. Readers who go to the image files and who click on the software links want to be taken to the precise information about the software version the camera uses. But you would take that away from them. WHY? Why is it so important to you to make it harder for readers to find what they're looking for? I won't let you. Do what you will, but I'm not the only one who watches these articles and redirects and metadata links. You will not succeed in your blind effort to decrease the effectiveness of this encyclopedia! End of story! – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX!08:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
PS.Samsara, have you thought about the metadata links from Commons? or the llnks from other-language projects? Those links don't show up in the "What links here" list. PS left by – Paine
You still seem to be confused about the numbers. There was a single section-targeting redirect on Wikipedia, corresponding to 2120 inbound links from Commons files (or roughly 1 in 12000). There are no links from locally hosted files. Do you even know how to verify these things? Samsara10:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Then why not educate me? A "single section-targeting redirect" can be linked to by a few, by dozens or perhaps by hundreds of links from sister projects, other-language projects and even websites on the internet. So how exactly are you able to determine the exact number of links to that "single section-targeting redirect" from all possible sources? – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX!22:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, Samsara, either you have seen the error of your ways and are too embarrassed to respond (don't be – we all have made errors while editing this encyclopedia), or you have decided not to waste your time edifying another editor with your knowledge of how to find out the number of links to a page. So please allow me to add that there is no precise, exact method that will tell you how many links to anchors and section headers from sister projects, other-language projects nor internet websites. Check any counters you use and you will find that the good ones explain that their counts are not reliable and only estimates at best; that includes "zero" counts. This is the last I will say on this matter, so hopefully you will do the right thing and add back any tables you have removed from software articles that contain any anchors or section headers, which can be linked to by any number of pages inside or outside of the English Wikipedia. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX!20:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm still baffled by some of the things you suggest. Other-language wikis do not use metadata redirects on the English Wikipedia. Your sense of entitlement stands in crass contrast with your lack of actual knowledge about obtaining information before you create a situation that may turn out to be purely disruptive. You've shown no intention of backing off, instead suggesting that I should "see the error of [my] ways". I see no reason to help you. Samsara20:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Signpost gallery
I don't usually go out of my way to "spread the love" (Wikilove), however this is special:
Okay, this shows me a lot about you, Doc. For the most part your edits are very sound; however, I'm not particularly fond of being treated as if I just started editing Wikipedia yesterday. There is nothing wrong with a journal reference nor a web/press treatment about that journal study. Journal studies are considered quite reliable as sources, so please consider that you might be being just a bit too picky here, okay? – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX!08:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey - wanted to follow up on the primary source discussion. am kind of surprised to see someone as experienced as you, arguing so strenuously that primary sources are OK to use at will. Are you interested in discussing further? If so, would you please have a look at the lead and first section of my draft essay User:Jytdog/Why MEDRS? (especially the first section, which is general) thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Before I wrote you I researched that. Yes, its common to hyphenate them. No, God did not inscribe that rule on a stone tablet. English breaks its own general rules all the time, and the best I could find was the rationale for the hyphen when it is used (to avoid what would otherwise be ambiguous meaning). In this case, please show me the most impressive RS you can find that follows that convention with "climate change (noun)" or "global warming (noun)"? I did a little looking myself; from New York Times to London Times. No hyphens on climate change (noun) in the first pages of hits. Can you find ANYONE that does it your way? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Interesting take, NAEG – first of all, when it comes to living things, except for a few possible exceptions, the only thing etched in stone is "death". Secondly, English does not break its own rules – English standards are there to make for better understanding among English speakers. English is said to be the third most difficult language to learn, so the more we make English nuances consistent, the less likely that understandings will be lost in communication. People, on the other hand, break the rules "all the time", and it is not uncommon for a rule-breakage to actually become standard in the vernacular. Anyway, as you say, it does not seem to be a big enough deal on which to waste a lot of time. I am not so familiar with the term "climate fiction" so that I would know where to look (other than yukky Google) for usages, which you seem to have already done anyway. So here's wishing the best of everything to you and yours! – Paine16:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for reply. I'm not so familiar with climate fiction, but widely read in the subject of climate change, generally. There's probably a teensy handful of examples in the ocean of references, where no one I've seen hyphenates "climate change (noun)" or "global warming (noun)". I think you implied agreement, but I like to make consensus nice and clear.....lacking RSs for a hyphen, can we take the hyphen out? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I thought you had already rm'd the hyphen. No, I do not contest the removal of the hyphen. All I ask is that the removal be consistent, that is, it should also be removed from "climate-change fiction", as well as from "climate-change themes". However, if it's not that big a deal to you, then it is more correct to leave the hyphens within the adjectival phrases. – Paine
(talk page stalker) Paine, do you really think that all noun phrases that are used adjectivally need to be hyphenated? I don't think so. I think the hyphen is not needed at "climate-change fiction". I think a hyphen is only needed when it helps to remove any possible confusion, and in standard phrases like "a six-foot-tall man" or "a ten-year-old kid". CorinneSD (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Well CorinneSD, no I don't think that all of them need hyphens, which is why I was not averse to changing African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68) to African American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68). When I first got to the Cli fi article, "climate-change fiction" was hyphenated and "climate change themes" was not. All I did was to follow standard usage (standard because while it might not be confusing to some readers, it may yet be so to other readers) and hyphenate to "climate-change themes" – I was mostly seeking consistency within the article. – Paine18:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I swear I read in some Wikipedia guideline that pamphlets and essays were capitalized (especially if an essay was issued as a pamphlet, considered by many as a book), but can't find it now (nor any language on pamphlets - so it's where that language is). The language in the MOS guidelines about longer and shorter titles (as if for a name to be italicized depended on the length of the title?) seems oddly worded and incorrect. Randy Kryn 16:02 30 March, 2015 (UTC)
Essays by great authors like Emerson are parts of larger works. The larger works are called "collections", and they are italicized, but not the essays themselves. That's also found at MOS:TITLEQUOTES. The sentence is meant to refer to the length of the works – "longer" pertains to books and collections, and "shorter" pertains to essays, articles and chapters of books. Be bold and reword the passage if you find it confusing. I'll help you change back the italic-essay edits you've made. – Paine16:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
By the way, Randy, the {{Italic title}} template can also be used on pages that have parenthetical disambiguators, such as Title (essay). You don't have to use the DISPLAYTITLE magic word. The parentheses and their contents are automatically not italicized when the Italic title template is used. – Paine16:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, and Yikes, Henry David Thoreau's template already had the essays italicized, so I just went along and added italics to the page titles (although the titles in the texts were already italicized when I opened the door and should, I guess, now be changed). I'll dig into this one and try to pry most of those pages loose from "the italics" ( bad case of that going around in the tropics), or at least will start at the bottom of the essay section and work my way up if you want to do a few. Darn essays (although pamphlets and plays are still italicized, so I'll just get to my essay edits). Randy Kryn 16:30 30 March, 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to get a meal and then get back to the Emerson template. – Paine
(EDIT: I just dropped TonyTheTiger a note) You know, maybe we should leave the Thoreau template as is for awhile and ask Tony the Tiger, who created it, why he had all the essays capitalized nd he might know something we don't on this. For example, Thoreau's essay 'Civil Disobedience' has been in italic, which is how I'd imagine it, so would this one be included too? A meal sounds good. May do so myself before I get back to those questions. Randy Kryn 16:42 30 March, 2015 (UTC)
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Wgolf (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Question to resolve prior to good article submission
Hi Paine, without mentioning your name I mentioned something you said in this thread at talk - climate fiction. Please consider the nature of the material in the "history" section, and compare to the topic of WP:BIB, and I'll watch for anything you might have to say in the other thread. Thanks for your attention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
edit summaries
Paine Ellsworth don't use edit summaries to carry on conversations or make remarks about others (see WP:REVTALK)[5][6]. And don't reopen closed threads[7] as you've now done twice at Talk:Feminism. Wikiepdia is not a forum conversations that stray into forum chatter will be closed (as the talk page says and in line with WP:TPG). If you were unclear on why I did this the thing to do would have been to ask me on my talk page. Your comments speculating on possible links of Feminism and birth rates are original research and qualify as using wikipedia as a forum. DawnDusk's remarks are flamebait and qualify as using wikipedia as a sopabox. Either of these kind of comment can (and do) result in thread closure. Finally the lede issue is resolved and the matter closed--Caililtalk09:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
It is not improper to include OR on talk pages, friend Cailil, only in articles. Also, what most definitely is improper is to abruptly close an ongoing conversation about possible improvements to an article. The lead issue may or may not be resolved at this point, so either add your most welcome 2 cents to the discussion or sit on the sidelines. I will thank you to never again exhibit article/talk-page ownership by improperly closing any discussion in which I actively participate. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX!09:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Using wikipedia as a forum is improper (and you see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#OR about OR on talk pages) and if anyone partakes in a conversation that is derailed into forum territory it can and will be closed by someone. It's not personal and not an insult Paine, but attempting to intimidate me is not going to work. Accusing somebody of ownership while reverting twice is WP:KETTLE. Like I said on the talk page I'm happy to work with anyone who wants to improve the article. The WP:FACR and a team of proof readers identified 7 areas for improvement. The lede isn't one of them (because changing it would make wikipedia at variance with reliable sources and that would lead to serious admin action), there are however other things that need tweaking and adjustment. I apologise if you find my tone stern or terse but this not a grey area--Caililtalk10:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
With respect for your obvious higher knowledge of the article's subject, I disagree with you in that what you have called OR might or might not be OR, since I still need to research it and possibly find reliable sources for it. As for your judgement that the discussion in question is a forum discussion, I don't see that either, so maybe you could give an example or two where editor DawnDusk has shown baiting tendencies in the past? One more thing... I do know the difference between stewardship and ownership, so please keep that in mind. Your comments about the lead above go counter to the very heart of Wikipedia. Nothing is ever perfect insofar as it cannot be improved, even in GAs and FAs. I can also understand how deep feelings of stewardship can sometimes lead to unintentional or accidental acts of ownership in the eyes of others, so if I've mistaken your behavior, then just know that it strongly appeared like ownership. In any case, I hope you'll feel free to express your opinions in the ongoing discussion on the talk page of the article. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX!10:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Paine there is no need for equivocation. If you've not done the research and can't source it then it's a forum post. End of story. Post like this are flamebait[8] (not a well thought out suggestion for improvement), and the lede issue is resolved. There are things to do (like checking citations, as you just did which is great) but the matter of feminism ≠ equality for men is a cul de sac--Caililtalk10:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The opening post in that thread is a standard gripe without any substantive articulation of a proposed article improvement. However, on March 30 a constructive question was asked which might have led to such an articulation only the very next edit was thread closure. That closure seemed hasty to me, a lowly regular editor.
The OP's eventual response reads as a soapboxing rant. I read the entire thread and am at a loss to practice WP:Writing for the opponent so as to pen succinct statement of the article improvement idea being discussed. After efforts to get the article improvement idea articluated, and the RSs listed, I collapse such threads as SOAP and FORUM also. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
My POV on threads that start wrong is not to collapse but close them that way if a point is raised (Popish Plot's one) a new thread can be opened to discuss sourced changes. In this instance a) the thread starts with flamebait b) Paine adds a speculation about about birth-rate and feminism (stating they have no sources) and c)Popish plot says "And correlation between birth rate and feminism? I'm thinking we'd need a reliable source saying that although I can imagine why it is obviously the case. But can't be in the article if it's original research". The whole thread, despite Popish Plot's good point is off-topic (a forum post). But I closed it rather than collapsing it {{archivetop}} with a comment about WP:NOTFORUM so that people could see it. From my POV there was no need to reopen it. If Paine had sources they could have started a new on-topic thread rather than keeping the flamebait above their post live--Caililtalk11:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
And yet, when an editor tries to do just that, they can be accused outrageously of things that are farthest from their minds. It's why I hold a disdain for participating in mega-controversial issues. – Paine11:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Greetings Paine! If you have a moment, I'd like to pick your brain for a thought regarding a couple of Rcats and their corresponding templates ... specifically {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} and {{R to section}}. With the way that these categories are set up, I'm thinking that if a redirect is tagged (properly) with {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}, then also tagging it with {{R to section}} could be seen as redundant, especially considering the current wording that the two templates return to those who view tagged redirects. Any thoughts that may help resolve this? Steel1943 (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Steel, thank you for asking – let's' take a closer look:
From incomplete disambiguation: This is a redirect from an incomplete disambiguation, a page name that has been disambiguated and is still too ambiguous to be the title of an article or other project page. Such titles should generally redirect to the appropriate disambiguation page (or section of it).
To a section: This is a redirect from a topic that does not have its own page to a section of a page on the subject.
These are the texts that are returned to those who view a redirect so tagged. Yes, there is a bit of redundancy; however, there is blending and overlapping among many rcats. Both of these also have applications that would not include the other, as well. Ideally, some contributors monitor Category:Redirects to sections for whatever reason(s) and some monitor Category:Redirects from incomplete disambiguations for whatever other reason(s). What would you like to see these rcats do? – Paine14:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Given the text these return, I wondered if the text in {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} needs to be updated to inform editors not to use {{R to section}} in the event the "incomplete disambiguation" tag is placed. To me, it seems that {{R to section}} is used exclusively for pages that are not disambiguation pages, based on its wording. Then again, if "...from a topic that does not have its own page..." and "...on the subject." was removed from {{R to section}}, leaving only "This is a redirect to a section of a page.", maybe that would make more sense. Or... maybe add "where there may be a subject related to the redirect" added to the end? I am wondering this since, in some cases, section redirects could be something as obscure as a WP:SHORTCUT where there really isn't a "topic" associated with the shortcut. Steel1943 (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Template:R from Greek letter organization letters/doc
Your description of what belongs here *may* be a little too tight. The following fraternities exist in the Philippines: Fox Theta Delta (known as the Digammans, not sure if obsolute Greek Letters count in the template or not) (FΘΔ), and Fragile Phi Beta (FΦΒ), Ironclad Stalions(ΙCΣ), Lambda Delta (ΛΔ187), Omega Pelta Kappa (ΩPΚ), Zeta Epsilon - Alpha Lambda Inc. (ΖΕ-ΑΛ), Trivial Epsilon Omega (√ΕΩ), Tau Sigma Alpha/Lambda (ΤΣΑ/Λ). None currently have articles (though Tau Sigma Alpha/Lambda has had a draft), but just some nightmares on the subject. (And yes, that's a Pelta).Naraht (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for these good thoughts, Naraht! The other side of the coin would seem to be that this Category:Redirects from Greek letter organization letters should be reserved for what its title means, which is "Greek letter organizations". Anything in that category that is not composed of Greek letters does not live up to the title of the category. Maybe in time, when the number of exceptions like those you have furnished above warrants it, another category can be created for them as a subcategory of the Redirects from initialisms cat. For now, any initialisms that are not made up of Greek letters should probably populate that parent category (unless of course they are mixed letters by mistake, in which case they would belong in the {{R typo}} cat). That's just an opinion, and I could be wrong. – Paine18:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Giving this more thought, I suppose I'm really not averse to introducing redirects that are made up of "at least one Greek letter" into this category just as long as the redirects lead to titles that make it clear that the letters or symbols that are not Greek letters are indeed a part of the target-subject organization's name. Let me massage this to see if there is a wording that will cover these while at the same time will continue to ensure that typos won't be reintroduced to the category. Joys! – Paine18:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
As an additional note there are USA fraternities and sororities that don't have names made out of Greek letters. "Greek Letter Organizations" as description includes both fraternities and sororities like Acacia, FarmHouse, Triangle and Ceres. So if FH (Roman F, Roman H, not Digamma, Eta) was created as a redirect to FarmHouse, (it is already a dab for about 15 terms), that *would* be a "Redirect from Greek letter organization". I know this is messy and I'm not trying to make your job harder :(Naraht (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
That is something I don't understand – why would the letters F and H (not Ϝ and Η) that are together as FH (not as ϜΗ) to represent FarmHouse be candidates to be included in the Greek letter org letters cat? Wouldn't the fact that they're Romans exclude them from the Greek letter cat? – Paine19:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Think of "Greek Letter Organization" as a single word GreekLetterOrganization. just because it is a Greek Letter Organization, doesn't mean it is represented by greek letters. FarmHouse is an Collegiate Social Fraternity (like Alpha Tau Omega), therefore FarmHouse is a GreekLetterOrganization. The Roman Letters FH are the abbreviation of the organization FarmHouse. Therefore FH (Roman Letters) if it were a redirect would be a R from GreekLetterOrganization letters, which in my mind is what the category is. Acacia is sometimes represented as AKAK, but I'm not sure which of those are As, Alphas, Ks or Kappas. I'll research more.Naraht (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Naraht, I am having trouble doing that – I mean reconciling the term "Greek letter organization" with an organization that is not represented in some way by one or more Greek letters. If it is common practice to do so, then so be it; however, why would any frat or sorority or honor society automatically be thought of as a Greek letter org. if indeed it is not an org. that is symbolized in some way by Greek letters? – Paine06:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
"Greek Letter Organizations" is used as a supercategory for Social Fraternities, Social Sororities, Professional Fraternities (which may or may not be co-ed), Honor Societies (which are co-ed due to Title IX), etc. In each of these, there may be a few organizations which while otherwise indistinguishable from the other in structure, method and location of operation and characteristics have a name which is not a collection of Greek Letters (i.e. the *only* characteristic that the Social Fraternities Alpha Tau Omega, Sigma Nu and Phi Kappa Theta share that they don't all share with Acacia is the use of Greek Letters to indicate it). The North-American Interfraternity Conference has 75 members, 73 of them have names made up of greek letters, 2 don't, for example, but they'd add be viewed as "Greek Letter Organizations".
Well, my friend, if there's one thing I've learned while creating dozens of these Greek-letter redirects, it's that I have seen your edits on many, many of these pages, so I have grown to see you as very knowledgable in this area. I shall tweak the rcat documentation to indicate the exceptions. Thank you for a "collegiate" education! – Paine13:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
No Problem. I'm a brother of Alpha Phi Omega (and so is my wife, my sister and my wife's sister. :) ) and I've worked with the Alpha Phi Omega of the Philippines more than almost any Alpha Phi Omega USA brother. (which is why I tweeked the Hatnote on Alpha Phi Omega). On another note. Do you know any way to clear the what links here on Sigma Lambda Alpha, there are still a number of pages whose link is from the now changed template.Naraht (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there are two ways, a fast way and another way that is usually much slower. The slow way is just to be patient, because the links will clear off the list automatically in from a few hours to several days depending on the present Wikipedia server load. The fast way is to use a null edit to purge each page. Joys! – Paine15:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Brought up AWB, turned off the skip on no changes are made and saved the lot. Still a few to be dabbed though, I'll take care of them.Naraht (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Great job! and I went through the project and user pages to dab the ones that needed it. One was one of yours (heads up in case I was in error). – Paine10:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Mixed Greek Latin
Yeah that was a request for the results of a database dump from a while ago. I thought that I could reproduce it with insource, but that isn't working. The page Phi Zeta has a ΦZ (that's a Phi followed by a Roman Z), but insource:/ΦZ/ won't find it. Not sure why.Naraht (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
That's one reason why I like to do some things the old-fashioned way (manually). It's much slower, but it gives me a way to make many needed peripheral edits along the way. Don't get me wrong – I've used AWB, for example, and it's fabulous for some applications; however, other work begs for the "personal" manual touch. I'll get to Phi Zeta eventually (probably after you've fixed it, if you haven't already ;>). – Paine12:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I think that dealing with that requires a finer touch than AWB, my concern is with the search actually on wikipedia (Cirrus Search), why isn't it finding Phi Zeta when I do insource:/ΦZ/ ? (and that's a Roman Z)Naraht (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, I just created a redirect ΦΖPhi Zeta (with the letter Zeta), and I checked to see if there is an existing ΦZ redirect (with the letter Zee), but there's not. Maybe the redirect must exist for the search to work? (I know nothing about CS). I also replaced the Zee with a Zeta in the Phi Zeta ibox. – Paine13:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you created it, but I was hoping the Z could be left alone until we had some idea why it wasn't finding the Phi Zee in the infobox...Naraht (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to revert the ibox edit, Naraht – you can always change it back later. Hope you are able to figure out that gnarly challenge! – Paine23:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
OK. I know changing articles for tests like that is discouraged, but it isn't like most readers would be able to tell. :)Naraht (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Redirects from writers
Hi, Paine. Thanks for your implementation of Category:Redirects from writers by template. I may have added more than ten this spring including some with {{Redr||pw}} --which flags them in another way, I learned recently, altho it is an abuse of the term "Miscellaneous" as I know what they are! Now I get around to asking you and find that the work has been done and I should have checked first --or I should have remembered what I knew; that's possible too :--(
I will visit all in the category, and replace the hard category as I check for DEFAULTSORT, Year of birth missing, Pseudonymous writers, etc --stuff that I have tried to remember to add to mine. Along the way I'll note whether any are illustrators rather than writers. --P64 (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Paine, I ran into you part-way through revising my recent ones, which are related to co-created works. Consequently I quickly revisit Ann Landers and Zizou Corder. Please advise generally how far you would go incorporating the matter of my comments and in particular whether the current Zizou Corder is appropriate.
I'll break now.
I completed the general survey of all. 17 of 35 are winners and finalists for the Canadian Edna Staebler Award.[perhaps to be continued] One of 35 is strictly illustrator only and three are writer-illustrators, with those four targets all articles on the illustrated works. For now I am inclined to tweak the documentation and use parameter |e1= to note illustrator, rather than create a distinct template.
That's a real load off, P64 – I put this on my list of things to do in the near future. Happy to see that you are handling it! Thank you! and Best of everything to you and yours! – Paine
Kappa Alpha
I've been going back through the NIC and adding the Greek Letter Redirects which hadn't been created yet. I ran into one I wasn't quite sure of: ΚΑ which is a redirect from greek letters, but goes to a dab page. Does it need something else to indicate that in the redr template? Naraht (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and thank you for asking, Naraht! I have added {{R from ambiguous page}} and have subdued the "unprintworthy" cat by use of its first parameter (you probably know that if this is not done, then both the printworthy and unprintworthy cats are populated – an undesirable situation). This is what I've been doing with the other Greek letters I've redirected to dab pages. Joys! – Paine18:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
You are the master of redr. Note, it appears that ΚΑ and ΔΦΕ should be done the same, but they aren't. Is there any resulting difference?Naraht (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The only difference is the ordering of the rcats in the visual Mbox and at page BOTTOM; otherwise, they are both categorized the same. Since I try to be a little more consistent (), I shall "fix" the ΚΑ redirect. – Paine19:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I asked on the Help Desk for a list of all articles whose names consisted only of spelled out Greek Letters (like Alpha Tau Omega) and a list was generated. I got rid of the single letters and any merged ones like Pimu (results at User:Naraht/Greek letter titles. Then I took the current category list of the redirects we've been working on and compared them. The articles that don't yet have greek letter redirects are at User:Naraht/Greek letter titles TBD. Note this includes a number where the second or third greek letter is in lower case, we may want to delete them or just check on them. There is a another list at User:Naraht/Greek letter titles Done but which is the ones that have an entry in the category the equivalent spelled out didn't make the generated list. Some need to be removed from the category (like Kappa Mu), others I'm not quite sure what happened (like Alpha Epsilon Omega ). Let me know where you think we should go from here.Naraht (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Haven't been feeling well, lately, so my recent edits are pretty much as mundane as possible. I still create the needed redirects to existing Greek letter orgs that don't have them. I find them by using Special:PrefixIndex. So far there are more than twice as many as when I began. They are good search terms for readers who copy and paste the letters into a search field. – Paine02:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I understand, still the Greek letter titles TBD would be a good way to do this in a way to make sure that all of them that are currently out there are done.Naraht (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Each way has its merits, I'm sure. By the use of the Special page, I find other things that need to be done, as well, such as page titles that I've dabbed and such. Then I use Pop-ups to dab the WLH links. – Paine14:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd be happy to work from the end of the alphabet (either Latin or Greek) so we don't overlap each other in the short term.Naraht (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll start with Zeta then Xi, Upsilon etc. and work backwards in Latin. I can regen the TBD listing at a later time when we think we have gotten everything.Naraht (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Sure. But I'm going to regenerate the To Be Done to see what's left. I didn't touch some of the ones that already redirects. Also I didn't touch Chi Xi Sigma, since I wasn't sure what to cat it as.Naraht (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Naraht, I worded the rcat (...to an article that is titled with or describes the expanded form of the initialism.) so that the Greek letter redirect could target either the actual Greek letters, or an article that was not titled with the Greek letters and yet described them in the article, or even to sections of articles wherein the organization was described. So ΜΜΜ may indeed target North University and even to a section of that article if its org is described there, and it can go into the same cat as the others.
Before I began this phase, I went through all the 130 redirects that then existed in the cat and updated them, making sure that no typos (usually unwanted non-Greek letters) stayed in the cat, so they're all already handled. I'll take a look at Chi Xi Sigma. – Paine17:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Naraht, for Chi Xi Sigma, I hatnoted it with an explanation; however, I did not create a Greek letter redirect since the article is on a whole different topic. There will be no ΧΞΣ redirect in that cat until there is a GLO that it may target. – Paine17:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The entries for the PΔX include "From a misspelling: This is a redirect from a misspelling or typographical error. The correct form is given by the target of the redirect." Is this true given that it redirects to Rho Delta Chi rather than to the actual greek letters?Naraht (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, Naraht, and yet I'm of the belief that there are probably internet links to the Latin letter versions of some of these, and also even when they're not linked, a user might copy and paste a Latin version. Both of these possibilities make the typos good search terms, so a nuke attempt probably wouldn't survive RfD. – Paine19:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps. The only ones that seem completely nuts are those where some latin looking greek letters are done in latin and others in greek (say Roman Z, Beta, Roman T). But mispelling doesn't seem quite right as a term.
Yes, it is more of a general "typo"; however, a wrong letter from any alphabet would, it seems to me, be a "misspelling" as well. – Paine20:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
If we must, Naraht – where redirects are concerned, I'm usually not inclined to delete them except for flagrant violations. In this case, I found an article where the Greek letters were mentioned and retargeted. I'm not averse to deletion – I just don't like to take time to go through the process when who knows if and when a notable Kappa Mu society will be formed(?). – Paine02:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can come up with a similar scenario elsewhere, but in this case, if someone does link to ΚΜ it is probably no more than 1% chance that it redirects to what they intended.Naraht (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
One upside appears to be that when you Google "ΚΜ" Greek letters with the quotation marks, instead of Wikipedia coming up first, second or third, we don't even make the first three pages – yet another reason to consider the redirect "harmless". – Paine14:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I been trying for some time to contact you, thru both your old AOL addy and the mailing address on your website. The letter came back as undeliverable, so i was concerned you mighta croaked.
On a long shot, i tried this Wiki thingy and saw you are still about. Tried several times to post a message, but no go. Finally managed to sign on under the nickname 'Gondoofus' in parody of my ineptitude. Ha ha. So maybe this one will go through. If it does, my e-mail is
Hello Paine, I hope you are, and have been well. I noticed this discussion and did post a comment. I do think we would need to categorize these bot created redirects, perhaps creating a new {{rcat}}. It seemed like something you would be interested in, so I wanted to give a heads-up. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I've been standardizing all of the articles that I've been pointing to so that the first line starts out with the name and the greek letters in bold, but not the parentheses
'''Mu Mu Mu''' ('''ΜΜΜ''')
or
'''Mu Mu Mu Fraternity, Inc''' ('''ΜΜΜ''')
That looks like one I just did – there have been one or two that looked like that, they already had the Greek letters but with no bolding. I figured as long as the letters were there it was okay. Feel free to standarize the Pi Mu HS article, and put the Greek letters in bold if you like. – Paine19:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that you marked "Multiple Issues" on Psi Chi's Wikipedia page (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Psi_Chi). Thank you for taking the time to do this. Due to your efforts, I have gone through the page in order to update the information and add various references to help support the content provided.
I'm somewhat new to editing Wikipedia, so I didn't want to remove your "Multiple Issues" notification without giving you a chance to review the page first. Please let me know what you think about the changes.
Hi, Bradster12345 – Looks to me like you've made many positive changes to the article. Please keep in mind that I was not the one who tagged that page with all those maintenance templates. My only input there was to combine them all into a Multiple issues template. Any editor may remove any one or more of those tags when that editor feels comfortable doing so. I would have no problem with the removal of appropriate tag(s) at this point. Thank you! and Best of everything to you and yours! – Paine21:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)}
In a recent edit to the page Pink Floyd, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Laser brain(talk)19:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I understand, Laser brain. Read that in these cases the singular is sometimes used, but more often the plural is used. My bad. Thank you! and Best of everything to you and yours! – Paine19:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Phi Epsilon Chi
We had ΦEX (with a Roman E and X) in the Redirects from Greek letter organization letters , I created the correct one. Could you please make sure I changed the bad one correctly?Naraht (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Naraht – good to hear from you! Well, first of all, the initial redirect with the Roman E and X did not result from a page move, so that rcat should be removed. Secondly, the new redirect, while it has a Greek Phi and Epsilon, still has a Roman X instead of the letter Chi (Φ, Ε and X for ΦΕX). Also, the "correct" spelling in the first redirect (ΦEX) has the letters Greek Phi and Epsilon and a Roman X. The letters for the valid redirect are Φ, Ε and Χ, to make the ΦΕΧ redirect. Hope this helps! – Paine11:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
PS. Also cleaned up the lead of the Phi Epsilon Chi article (the "Chi" in the infobox and the Chi in the lead were both actually Roman X's). PS left by – Paine
Crap, so I need to create the ΦΕΧ redirect. I missed the X, but got the E. I'm going back through the category looking for roman letters...Naraht (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't be too hard on yourself – we've all done such things. You can bypass the ones I edited because I checked every letter to make sure it was all Greek (to me ) – Paine21:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Still, I find that Roman in place of Greek to be something I deliberately try to fix. To add to the problem... :( Naraht (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Very kind of you to invite me, Guy Macon! You would probably get a wider consensus if you were to include the RfC template at the TOP of the discussion, though. Best of Everything to You and Yours! – Paine23:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Poking around, I see that you are familiar with Category:Middle-earth redirects, which is implemented as a hard cat rather than by redirect templates. From the histories I understand that its eight subcategories were populated primarily by diffusion from that top redirect cat and primarily using redirect templates.
Hi, P64 – At present, at least one good reason to avoid hardcats like that would be that there is no explanation on the redirect page, as there would be if an rcat were used. Sometimes that is helpful, especially to newer editors who come upon them. In this case, though, the application of the ME hardcat seems pretty straightforward. – Paine14:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Alternatively, implementation of Category: [topic] redirects by rcat template would provide a convenient top redirect category, functional equivalent to Category: WikiProject [topic] redirects or Category: Task force [topic] redirects.
I don't understand why our only character, element(*), and place/location redirects by topic make commitments to list entries, list sections, or list pages as the targets. That seems backward for topics with numerous redirects: routinely get them together and out of the way, frequently diffuse by topical categories such as Narnia character redirects (or some radically different redirect subcat structure such as ME uses), occasionally diffuse into topical rcats differentiated by status of target as a list entry or a list. We do have {R to section}, {R to list topic}, and {R to list entry} generally available if it is useful to identify all such redirects; category intersection might be used to identify those (adequately tagged) redirects that happen to direct from topical characters to lists, for example, without the full-blown implementation of Category: topical character redirects to lists.
The Prydain redirects are manageable in number so I'll further abuse the rcat structure there, for illustration. --P64 (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC) ... DoneCategory:Prydain element redirects to lists directly contains 14 pages, four of which represent three fictional objects and none of those have list targets. The location subcat contains 9 pages that represent nine locations, so to speak, none with list targets. The character subcat contains 40 pages of which 39 represent 27 fictional characters or creatures, both individual and races/species, many with a list target. In sum there are 63 redirects directly and one level under so-called Prydain element redirects --all the redirect pages for which a hypothetical Prydain task force might take some responsibility, except for my clerical errors and oversights. This is abusive, as I said (and as my earlier {underconstruction} notices on the category pages warn) but it gets them all in one place without creating new rcat templates or hard categories. --P64 (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
P.S. But I did revise template {{R fp}} one week ago to provide rcats topical location redirects --without commitment to list targets and without documentation yet, but otherwise parallel to your topical character and element redirects rcats. Now populated for Narnia and Prydain. Good day, whatever time it may be for you. I'm a couple minutes late, so I run. --P64 (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The "to list" structure of these rcats is quite possibly a type of "dinosaur" left over from the ol' days when that was the only type of redirect found or needed. The vast majority of redirects may still fall into the "to list" sorting, so maybe a separate category and rcat is called for? Sorry to be of little help in this, but my familiarity with groups like Middle-earth, TV episodes and such is very basic, and I'm learning as I go. You appear to be doing pretty amazing work, P64! Thank you for keeping me apprised! – Paine21:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I've seen multiple redirects using redirect categories such as Category:Unprintworthy redirects where it would be better to use a template such as {{R unprintworthy}}, and that got me thinking... Since you are pretty active in the area of redirect tagging, what do you think of the idea of having a bot manually replace categories with redirect tags? I don't know how simple or feasible coding such a bot would be, but I thought I'd suggest the idea to you since you're active in that area. If you have any thoughts, please let me know! Dustin(talk)03:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
If you aren't interested, just say so, but I've intentionally delayed any further action on this so I could see what you think. I notice you going about business as usual, so... Dustin(talk)15:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Dustin, I don't mean to give such an impression, truly, it's just that I've been working harder than usual on updating rcats and their documentation because I was coming to the end of it – literally years of finding and updating these templates to make it a little better for other editors like yourself. And that's among many other things I've been doing both on and off Wikipedia. And now that job's essentially finished – done – kaput! Well, except for the categories, which need a few tweaks here and there, the templates, all of 'em, are updated along with their documentation. And every single rcat I've been able to find is listed in the alphanumerical index! I do feel like celebrating! For me, it's like "the end of an era" to have all that behind me. Please, though, please never let yourself think that I'm not interested in what you have to say. I'm getting a little old now, and am sometimes slow to react and respond. But I consider contributors like you and P64 above to be the backbone of this reference work. On to your inquiry...
There are still many redirects that have been tagged (some by bots) with the hard-linked cats, such as the one you mentioned, left over from "the good ol' days". I come across them frequently myself, but compared with the task of finding every mainspace redirect that hasn't been tagged either printable or unprintable at all, at least those that are "hard-catted" are sorted for the printed and CD/DVD versions. I seldom see the advantages of a bot, though, yet I am sure you could find one that isn't too busy to do the job. The trick would be figuring out how to program the bot to find all the redirects that are hard-catted. Listen to me, talking like I know something about bots. The closest I come would be to use AWB on occasion to make sweeping changes to large groups of redirects and rcats. I usually like to edit them individually, because each one has different needs. I always check the page history to see if there had been a page move/rename or merge in its past – anything that might help me sort the redirect correctly. So much of that is missed by bots or even AWB, so I use AWB sparingly, and the only time I can remember ever using a bot were those times when I opened an RfC discussion, which uses a bot to spread the word. I guess I've not been so helpful to you after all, but I've always pretty much been a behind-the-scenes hands-on editor who knows little-to-nothing about bots. Don't let that stop you, though, because your idea of using a bot is worth looking into. There are so many mainspace redirects, and only a relative few of them have been sorted as printworthy or unprintworthy. I don't know how long it would take a bot to go through all of them and tag them properly, but it's a sure thing that it wouldn't take nearly as long as you or I, even if that were all that we did. Thank you, Dustin, for asking and for being here! – Paine20:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for going to so much trouble to improve Wikipedia's sorting of redirects. It really makes a difference, so I apologize if I made myself sound too impatient. All that aside, I greatly appreciate the in-depth response! Dustin(talk)00:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't think it does cause any substantial problem now. It used to cause a problem and all links had to be preceded by a w:, as in [[w:wp:naming convention]], but that problem has been resolved by upgrades to the software. I think maybe that tool hasn't been updated. I note in some cases the entries are the same except for other capitalizations. If there is one correct capitalization of a title, that should be the only title in the category. The other redirects should be tagged by {{R caps}} and {{R up}}, but should not populate Category:Narnia redirects. Hope this helps. – Paine22:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks.
Re what "should" be, I will propose that "Narnia redirects" or something similar, as "Middle Earth redirects" is comprehensive, to cover *all* redirects related to something or other -- in effect, "WikiProject such-and-so redirects" without the rigmarole of creating a WikiProject. In particular the substantial redirects are down in elements, characters, locations [whether or not the targets happen to be lists or list entries or something else]. Unfortunately Narnia is too big and I will switch primary illustration to Prydain. I hope to complete it during the next 20 hours (wh incl sleep and two meals) and summarize for WikiProject Redirects at least. --P64 (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
..."a more general perspective on humanity" to avoid race/species altogether? Race (biology) actually implies subgrouping also. Homo sapiens is the article about the species as a whole so your second change is a little confusing. Genus ==> species ==> cultivar (hybrid) or race ==> subrace/subspecies.
No, no relation, and why would we want to avoid "species"? Since the article is about the species known as Homo sapiens, the word "species" is the most precise in a scientific sense. It may be better to have a discussion like this on the talk page of the article. Best of Everything to You and Yours! – Paine22:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Paine Ellsworth. 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.
heh – Paine 
Phi Zeta (with the letter Zeta), and I checked to see if there is an existing ΦZ redirect (with the letter Zee), but there's not. Maybe the redirect must exist for the search to work? (I know nothing about CS). I also replaced the Zee with a Zeta in the Phi Zeta ibox. – Paine 13:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Done Category:Prydain element redirects to lists directly contains 14 pages, four of which represent three fictional objects and none of those have list targets. The location subcat contains 9 pages that represent nine locations, so to speak, none with list targets. The character subcat contains 40 pages of which 39 represent 27 fictional characters or creatures, both individual and races/species, many with a list target. In sum there are 63 redirects directly and one level under so-called Prydain element redirects --all the redirect pages for which a hypothetical Prydain task force might take some responsibility, except for my clerical errors and oversights. This is abusive, as I said (and as my earlier {underconstruction} notices on the category pages warn) but it gets them all in one place without creating new rcat templates or hard categories. --P64 (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
