User talk:Paine Ellsworth: Difference between revisions

By /

The following are closed discussions. Please do not modify them. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ⸎


The redirect T:R from 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/2025 July 29 § T:R from until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the notie, editor Utopes! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 11:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2025).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, G15, has been enacted. It applies to pages generated by a large language model (LLM) without human review.
  • Following a request for comment, there is a new policy outlining the granting of permissions to view the IP addresses of temporary accounts. Temporary account deployment on the English Wikipedia is currently scheduled for September 2025, and editors can request access to the permission ahead of time. Admins are encouraged to keep an eye on the request page; there will likely be a flood of editors requesting the permission when they realize they can no longer see IP addresses.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Wikimania 2025 is happening in Nairobi, Kenya, and online from August 6 to August 9. This year marks 20 years of Wikimania. Interested users can join the online event. Registration for the virtual event is free and will remain open throughout Wikimania. You can register here now.
September 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
  • On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You’re receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the RM here in regards to the malformed nomination of a redirect. I hope you don’t mind that I shamelessly stole your note’s wording at two other RMs here and here. I also noticed that you did a similar note back in 2023, so thanks for keeping an eye on this for so long! Fork99 (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help! Paine  13:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2025).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open on whether use of emojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion under G15.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been closed.
  • An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

@Paine Ellsworth 2402:800:629E:36F:6E69:240D:4927:AF0F (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I help you? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 18:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There was actually consensus for moving this article into “Anti-Palestinian racism” in the linked RM. Do we need a new RM? Thanks! Bogazicili (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi editor Bogazicili and thank you very much for coming to my talk page! There was indeed a growing consensus for “Anti-Palestinian racism” in the closed move request; however, 1) there was also strong pushback, and 2) that title had been only informally proposed. So I thought it best to test the amount of growth with the second RM. I figured that if “Anti-Palestinian racism” is the highest and best title for that article, then it would gain an even stronger agreement and acceptance when proposed on its own in a formal request. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! We don’t need to wait before doing another request right? Bogazicili (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or should this be asked at WP:AN? Bogazicili (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the correct venue for reviewing the closes of requested moves is WP:MRV. While there was a growing consensus for “…racism”, I did not see consensus for or against the current title of “Anti-Palestinianism”, which was another good reason to grant editor Lumbering in thought’s request at WP:CR to reopen the second request. I will clarify my closing statement as follows:
Not moved per consensus in the survey below. Closure requested at WP:CR (permalink). There is no agreement seen below as to whether or not to keep the current title, so the request to reopen the move proposal in the next talk-page section is granted in order to see if consensus can be garnered for the proposed title, “Anti-Palestinian racism”.
That should satisfy the needs shown in the previous move request. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 18:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Bogazicili (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Payne Ellsworth.

In Template:Oceania topic, can you remove East Timor (also called Timor Leste)? Unlike neighboring Indonesia, which has territory in Oceania (Western New Guinea), East Timor is entirely located in Asia (in Southeast Asia to be precise).

See also the Oceania and Southeast Asia articles.

Yours sincerely, Oratas (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi editor Oratas, and thank you for coming to my talk page! After reading Oceania and other articles, it appears that while Timor-Leste is a part of Southeast Asia, there are parts of Southeast Asia that are also in the huge area of Oceania. To remove Timor-Leste from the Oceania topic navbar would seem to be at least a bit controversial. I see that it has not been discussed at Template talk:Oceania topic, and that would be the better venue to garner consensus in regard to whether or not Timor-Leste should be a link in that navbar. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 16:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the tip! Sorry I didn’t notice, I think it was my first close. –Darouet (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help, editor Darouet! and thank you for your help closing discussions! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 18:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


The redirect Irrational fear (unknown) 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/2025 September 19 § Irrational fear (unknown) until a consensus is reached. consarn (grave) (obituary) 19:35, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors – September 2025 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June.

Election news: Project coordinators play an important role in our WikiProject. Following the mid-year Election of Coordinators, we welcomed GoldRomean to the coordinator team. Dhtwiki remains as lead coordinator, and Miniapolis and Mox Eden return as coordinators. If you’d like to help out behind the scenes, please consider taking part in our December election – watchlist our ombox for updates. Information about the role of coordinators can be found here.

June 2025 blitz: 10 of the 12 editors who signed up for the June 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited a total of 26,652 words comprising 13 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

July 2025 drive: 30 of the 54 editors who signed up for the July 2025 Backlog Elimination Drive copy edited a total of 379,557 words comprising 151 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

August 2025 Blitz: 11 of the 17 editors who signed up for the August 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited a total of 65,601 words comprising 25 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

September 2025 Drive: Sign up here to earn barnstars in our month-long, in-progress September Backlog Elimination Drive.

Progress report: As of 06:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 222 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,010 articles.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn’t be able to achieve what we do without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skeleton 2806:2F0:90A0:80EA:3D1A:9813:483E:220B (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can I help you? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 08:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the above move wasn’t done quite right, the redirect Jean-Yves Thériault (kickboxer) now has the article history and talk page of the musician and Jean-Yves Thériault (musician) has no history and no talk page since it was created from scratch. The history and talk page from Jean-Yves Thériault (kickboxer) should be merged to Jean-Yves Thériault (musician). Mika1h (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, editor Mika1h, for coming to my talk page! And thank you, too, editor 162 etc. for the ping at WT:RM! Yes, that is the typical outcome when the ROUNDROBIN page move method is used to preserve the page histories. If the page history for the musician is now at the kickboxer title, then it will take an admin to fix it, so I’ll see if editor Martin can fix it? I’ve already taken care of the talk page. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does that look now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you nailed it. Thank you so much! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 18:32, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2025).

Administrator changes

CheckUser changes

Vanamonde93

Arbitration

  • After a motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections at WP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g. [[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.

Just a friendly reminder that you may have forgotten to move the article to the most stable title, as noted in your closing comment here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for coming to my talk page, editor Sheriff! The article is fully move protected, so I had to use WP:RMTR to ask an admin to help us out. Please be patient. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 20:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation#Requested move 26 September 2025

@Paine Ellsworth Clearly more people support the move than who oppose it. You just closed it – saying ” the oppose rationales are much stronger and policy-based” – you need to explain why. This closure is not appropriate. Please explain your reasoning – or revert the closure. If not, I will challenge it. Cinaroot (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested topic – and such vague closure is not appropriate. Also it can run for 30 days. You can only close it – if outcome is clear and unlikely to change.
cc @CommunityNotesContributor Cinaroot (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, editor Cinaroot, for coming to my talk page! Given a choice between explaining and reverting, I would choose explaining. I did not go into detail in my closing statement, because almost every time I do so, I am accused of casting a “supervote”. And the stark reality is that the stronger oppose arguments pretty much explain themselves. I read the survey three times, and each time I came to the same conclusion. A gentle reminder that when you close a discussion, it is not a numbers game, it is the weight of the rationales that determines consensus. The self-explanatory arguments in the survey, when one reads them through the lenses of uninvolved impartiality and policy, lead to the conclusion that there is no true agreement in that move request.
And the reason I closed it rather than just relist it is because I saw other suggested titles that were also proposed and thought that editors might want to pursue a move request for one or the other of those potential titles. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 02:24, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know it’s not a numbers game again. But you still haven’t explained your reasoning. Why opposing arguments are stronger? You are saying there is no true agreement. I don’t understand. There is lot of people who agreed to it. You need a strong reasoning to close this as no consensus,
please see a good closing Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 12#RfC on first sentence
This is how it should be. Cinaroot (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saw the closure on CR, and its fairly strange to me.
I understand you are a much more experienced editor than me, but it would be helpful if you did a summary describing why the opposes are more policy-minded.
The opposes are outnumbered by at least 3 to 1. its hard not to see this as a supervote, and especially hard without explaining the reasoning. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the stark reality is that the stronger oppose arguments pretty much explain themselves. I think reading through the oppose args (specifically how the other genocide accusations are more contested than this latest Gaz one), I can start to see where you are coming from, and could see a no consensus being valid for the move argument.
but as there were many folks who voted support, it would be helpful to spell it out. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:49, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already requested a move review. This close and how they closed was not appropriate. Cinaroot (talk) 03:52, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, editor Bluethricecreamman! Since a move review has been opened, I probably should stay quiet to see what reviewers think, but since your review seems to hinge on further explanation, I will do my best: I thought that oppose args were much stronger because several cited NPOV, PRECISE and even a previous name change that made the title more CONCISE, as well. This was I believe an unusual case where both supports and opposes were strong; however, I thought the opposes were quite a bit stronger, strong enough to offset the supports and result in no agreement overall among participants. And frankly, I would have been glad to revert and relist had editor Cinaroot asked specifically for that. I suppose that is no longer an option, though. We’ll see what reviewers at MR think of this contentious situation. I do think that editors who like “…question” and “…allegations” should be allowed to open a new RM to test one or both of those titles. That can only happen soon if my closure is endorsed at move review. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 04:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry – but your reasoning still doesn’t inspire confidence in your close. You may post in the move review that you are okay to revert and relist it. Cinaroot (talk) 06:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary as the reviewers will read this discussion and realize that I would have done that had you specifically asked me to. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 06:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“I would have been glad to revert and relist had editor Cinaroot asked specifically for that.” The opening comment was “Please explain your reasoning – or revert the closure”? I’m struggling to understand how we ended up with a move review here if you were willing to revert? CNC (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“Please explain your reasoning – or revert the closure.” Editor Cinaroot gave me a choice. As I said above, “Given a choice between explaining and reverting, I would choose explaining.” So there was no explicit “Revert the closure” on Cinaroot’s part above. I was given a choice, and I made a choice. Please do not struggle. There is no need for you to struggle; editor Cinaroot made a choice to take it to Move Review, and what’s done is done. If I was wrong, then the reviewers will have my closure overturned. We’re all volunteer editors here, so there are no hard feelings, truly. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 11:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so the issue was your lack of willingness to elaborate initially (as you did later, above), thus this move review being opened? “I did not go into detail in my closing statement, because almost every time I do so, I am accused of casting a “supervote”. It shouldn’t matter that editors accuse you of a supervote, that’s part of the ‘fun and games’ of closing controversial RMs, especially when changing the weight of such !votes considerably, and that’s OK when done accurately. If you’re not comfortable with that, then it’s best not to close them absent of such rationales. I don’t understand why your first reply wasn’t explaining properly as initially requested, this would of avoided a move review here. As would being more patient prior to opening one, granted. Anyway, are you still willing to revert so the review can be procedurally closed? CNC (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you for your words above! When a closer is wrongly accused of casting a supervote at Move Review, it usually muddies the waters and distracts reviewers from the task at hand, which is to analyze the closure, not the closer. I’m not sure what the procedure is as far as making a procedural close for such as this at Move Review. I’ve done it many times at move requests, but it is an infrequent issue at review. I think it’s best to see what reviewers say about the closure. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 11:50, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you were to revert the close, the move review would be null and void. There is nothing stopping the closer reverting during such a process, it’s effectively a way to back out of it. No closer should have to go through the often gruelling process unless it’s because they stand by their close, so the option remains a voluntary choice for now, so you do you as they say. Personally I otherwise don’t see accusations of a supervote muddying the waters at all, unless it’s a supervote; often it is thrown around as an empty accusation and as confirmation that there isn’t a lot wrong with the close. Sometimes it’s also just about use of language to try and avoid these accusations also, for example “I thought that oppose args were much stronger because “ would be better written as “The oppose args were much stronger because”, as it’s already assumed that it is only your interpretation as the closer, and that’s fine, so to reiterate opinion can be misleading, even if shouldn’t be. I’m personally not in need of such authoritative use of langugage to understand a close, but for many others it can be helpful or provide better confidence and trust in the close. Anyway, no hard feelings either, to me this is just a bit of a mess. CNC (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Palestinian genocide accusation. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Cinaroot (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Traffic report: One click after another
    Serial-killer miniseries, deceased scientist, government shutdowns and Sandalwood hit “Kantara” crowd the tubes.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2025).

Administrator changes

Toadspike

CheckUser changes

asilvering

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

 Template:R comics with possibilities, Template:R comics from alternative name, Template:R comics to list entry, Template:R comics from merge, Template:R comics from related word and Template:R comics to section have been nominated for merging with Template:R with possibilities, Template:R from alternative name, Template:R to list entry, Template:R from merge, Template:R from related word and Template:R to section. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template’s entries on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PK2 (talk; contributions) 00:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That’s what you are, always. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so very much, and you friend GA are as precious as all the rest of us put together! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 20:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’m sorry to bother you. I had a request on changes to be made of flags in this page Template talk:Country data Albania#Flag Variants. Since a number of erroneous flags listed in the template are linked to numerous articles, I found it expedient that they be replaced with accurate historical flags which are found in the List of Albanian flags article. Kj1595 (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for coming to my talk page, editor Kj1595, and I’ll be glad to look at Cd Albania for you! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 23:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello @Paine, I hope you’ve been well. I’m curious on your thoughts on withdrawing an RfC.

When it’s clear that an RfC should be modified to gain consensus should the editor who opened it withdraw the question?

See my recent comment at: Wikipedia:Closure requests. I’ll grab a link. Dw31415 (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here: Wikipedia:Closure requests#WT:NOT#RfC on consensus of WP:DESTNOT: Broad or specific. Dw31415 (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve responded at Wikipedia:Closure requests. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 01:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It seems pretty common that RfC’s start and then it pretty quickly emerges that the options given were not good options. In Roberts Rules groups there are easy methods to amend the proposal to increase the chance of passage. In RfC’s here, it seems like the community is stuck for 30 days to wait out the RfC. Are there any tools here for moving things along more quickly? Dw31415 (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dw31415, I wasn’t aware that you posted here. @Paine Ellsworth seems to have confirmed what I’ve been thinking since you first posted on the RfC regarding withdrawing the closure request. It would be unfair to the participants who spent time summarising their viewpoints to not have a formal close. It would also leave WP:DESTNOT in limbo. I will confirm here that I do not plan to withdraw my closure request or the RfC itself, despite the minority of editors who have expressed frustration with it. Thank you. 11WB (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting Paine’s thoughts here. (I was confused what page I was on). I look forward to seeing how the closer handles it. Dw31415 (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comix: Madness
    It could happen to anyone.
Guild of Copy Editors December 2025 Newsletter

Hello, and welcome to the December newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since September. If you’d like to be notified of upcoming drives and blitzes, and other GOCE activities, the best method is to add our announcements box to your watchlist.

Election news: The Guild’s coordinators play an important role in the WikiProject, making sure nearly everything runs smoothly and on time. Editors experienced in drives or blitzes and in good standing (unblocked and without sanctions) are invited to nominate themselves or another editor (with their permission, of course) to be a Guild coordinator until 23:59 on 15 December (UTC). The voting phase begins at 00:01 on 16 December and runs until 23:59 on 31 December. Questions may be asked of candidates at any stage in the process. Elected coordinators will serve a six-month term from 1 January through 30 June 2026.

September Drive: 43 of the 63 editors who signed up for the September Backlog Elimination Drive edited 693,541 words in 265 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

October Blitz: 14 of the 15 editors who signed up for the October Copy Editing Blitz edited 75,108 words in 31 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

November Drive: 38 of the 65 editors who signed up for the November Backlog Elimination Drive edited 590,816 words in 240 articles. Barnstars awarded are posted here.

December Blitz: The December Blitz will begin at 00:00 on 14 December (UTC) and will end on 20 December at 23:59. Sign up here. Barnstars awarded will be posted here.

Progress report: As of 01:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC), GOCE copy editors have completed 293 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 1,730 articles.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn’t be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Dhtwiki, GoldRomean, Miniapolis and Mox Eden.

To stop receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paine Ellsworth! Hope you are doing well. I was wondering if you could give me some help with the rcats at 1700s in Scotland1700s in Scotland? It is a redirect to category space, and thus should be tagged with {{R unprintworthy}}. But it is also a plausible article title, and therefore I tagged it as {{R with possibilities}}, which automatically adds the printworthy tag, categorizing the redirect as both printworthy and unprintworthy. Is there a way to remove the printworthy designation other than using {{suppress categories}}? Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi editor HouseBlaster, and thank you for coming to my talk page! One thing I noticed is that {{R with Wikidata item}} should be applied to inform editors that it’s associated with an item on Wikidata. I’m confused by the retargeting to the category. I think the original merge target, 1700 in Scotland, is better because then the Printworthy redirects category, which is always used with Category:Redirects with possibilities, can be applied. The “1700 in Scotland” article has links to other years in the decade, so I think it would help readers more to be redirected to that article instead of being sent to a category. I’m sorry, but I don’t understand why a redirect with possibilities would not be considered helpful in a printed or CD/DVD version of Wikipedia. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your insight 🙂 HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2025).

Administrator changes

Valereee

CheckUser changes

Spicy

Technical news

  • Starting on November 4, the IP addresses of logged-out editors are no longer being publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account associated with their edits.
  • Administrators will now find that Special:MergeHistory is now significantly more flexible about what it can merge. It can now merge sections taken from the middle of the history of the source (rather than only the start) and insert revisions anywhere in the history of the destination page (rather than only the start). T382958

Miscellaneous

Template:Use Sri Lankan English has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Dgp4004 (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your contributions. I note your recent procedural involvement in this discussion.

IMO, it would be better to do it the other way around? The OP has essentially withdrawn the original nomination at Talk:Judgment (disambiguation), and made a whole new rationale at Talk:Judgement. It would be less confusing to close the former, and let the discussion continue at the latter. 162 etc. (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, editor 162 etc., and thank you for bringing this to my attention! This was one of those “conflicting move requests on a different talk page” type of malformed request. I monitor those at WP:RM, and when one like this appears, I procedurally close the latest one and combine it into the earlier request. I continue to monitor this one, but I don’t see where the nom has mentioned anything about withdrawing the request. Instead I see pretty much the same argument in the closed request as in the open one, which is to dab the present Judgement article with “(virtue)” and then to move Judgement (disambiguation) to the base name. I don’t see the difference; what am I missing? Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 01:44, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve chosen to collapse the original thread instead. I do believe that the alternative I’ve proposed offers more of a “clean sheet” with less possibility for confusion, but won’t object further to the current status of both talk pages. 162 etc. (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Exit mobile version