User talk:Primefac/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Purna Chandra Mukhopadhyay

CopyPatrol had a report about the initial edit: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Purna_Chandra_Mukhopadhyay&oldid=972288176

Which closely matches: this page but it seems to have been substantially rewritten. I normally include a link whenever I nominate something for G 12; not sure how I missed it this time. Sorry.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like it would be better for a {{revdel}} than total deletion, then. Thanks for the followup (and for what it's worth, you did include a link to the URL, just didn't have a match by the time you tagged it). Primefac (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy decline

Did you look at the Earwig report for History of QubicaAMF Bowling World Cup? Every year is copy-pasted from one of the links at [1], to me it really looks like a blatant copyvio with about 55 different sources. –dlthewave ☎ 15:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I will be completely honest, when I checked the page an hour ago none of that was showing up; I checked some of the links and didn't see anything that was matching. I think I might be going insane. I'll take care of it. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'm just confused. I double-checked the copyvio tool for the diff after you tagged it and it picks up NONE of those sources, yet any other revision shows hits all across the board. I might have to re-check some of the ones I've declined today. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

That's really strange, thanks for getting to the bottom of it! –dlthewave ☎ 15:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

magic word

Hi. Is there a way to substitute article name in talkpage automatically? I want to substitute article's name on talkpage. How can we do that? Template:BASEPAGENAME substitutes Talk:XYX, but I want to substitute article name on the talkpage. Reason: I closed Talk:List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2020#Requested move 5 August 2020. I can move the pages manually without any problem. But not sure how to add template:Old RM to all the talkpages. I have already created an AWB list of all the affected talkpages. The only variable parameters in old RM template are "from", and "destination". Not sure how to handle them. Any ideas? Another solution is to skip the adding of old RM altogether. What do you think? —usernamekiran (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}} gives the name of the article associated with the page you're editing, but I would recommend just linking to the RM in the edit summary and not worry about {{Old move}}. Primefac (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do that. See you around —usernamekiran (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

PrimeBOT error

Hello, just wanted to let you know that in PrimeBOT's recent edit of WDYR-CD, it removed the tail end of a citation. My uneducated guess is that it was something to do with a pipe symbol. No big deal, it's fixed, just a heads-up in case this is a recurring issue. Cheers! Jessicapierce (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Definitely looks like it. It's Special:Diff/972836975, by the way. Raymie (t • c) 08:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

At its core it's a GIGO issue - the external link is formatted incorrectly, so AWB isn't able to properly parse it and thinks it's a pipe for the next parameter. I'll have to think about how to check for that sort of thing in the future, though I suspect it's a comparatively rare phenomenon. Thanks for the heads up, and for fixing it! I'm actually away this weekend, but when I get back to my main computer I'll do a check through the edit logs and see if I can find any other pages affected by this. Primefac (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

PrimeBOT 30 request

To complete the work at Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations/2020 infobox redesign proposal, I would like to request PrimeBOT to run so some parameters can be changed over that are temporarily supported in old and new variants, and to carry out some additional fixes:

For {{Infobox radio station}}

Before	After
image	logo
image_size	logo_size
alt	logo_alt
last airdate	last_airdate

For {{Infobox broadcast}}

Before	After
call_letters	callsign
enddate	last_airdate
HAAT	haat
effective_radiated_power	erp
station_branding	branding
station_logo	logo
station_slogan	slogan
other_chs	translators
call_letters	name
homepage	website

I also need two more things, and potentially a third:

* There are about 150 transclusions in main space of User:Raymie/Infobox radio station revamp (the beta version of the current radio infobox) that can be converted to {{Infobox radio station}} without needing to change any parameter names.

• There are transclusions of {{Infobox radio station}} that have empty parameters |share=, |share as of= and |share source= which should be removed. These were deprecated in 2017 and are not filled out in any articles, but some of them have them empty.
• {{Infobox broadcast}} is likely to be renamed to {{Infobox television station}} per this RM. Perhaps that could be reflected in the articles at the same time PrimeBOT runs on the Infobox broadcast pages?

Thanks so much for your assistance. Raymie (t • c) 18:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

As the template editor involved in updating these templates, this request looks good to me (in case you wanted a second opinion), except for the last item, which should probably wait for the RM discussion to close. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a problem, can probably get to it later this week. Primefac (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Updating here since Primefac closed the RM. I no longer need the first item as that's been done manually. However, I do have another need. Can we get unnamed blank parameters removed from both templates? They're being flagged by the unknown parameters check and cluttering up the unknown parameters categories for both infoboxes, so it might be good to just clean them up. Pinging Jonesey95 to update. Raymie (t • c) 21:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  No, because historically I've found that more often than not a blank parameter is because someone has borked an infobox (for example, Special:Diff/972329810). I'd rather not remove an until-recently-valid parameter value. Primefac (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• The problem is what's most common in these infoboxes is a stray pipe, e.g. KMVQ-FM. And because of a disputed change to not ignore blank positionals, they all show up in the tracking categories. Raymie (t • c) 22:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, I remove blank positionals. I thought you meant things like the one I listed above. Yes, those should get taken care of (assuming there is a parameter change/removal as well). Primefac (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes that'd be great. There seem to be a lot of calls to what must have been former parameters in Infobox television station, some of them I'd never seen:: |alt=, |former_locations=, |former_cities=, |hq_photo= (which is known unused) and |telephone=. Raymie (t • c) 23:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I want to make sure you see this now as I've added several common unsupported blank parameters to remove from {{Infobox television station}}. Thanks for the radio work; I suppose removing the blank positionals from the remaining 140 or so pages should be done manually? Raymie (t • c) 19:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I saw them, just debating whether I can get everything finished today or if I'll have to wait until next week. As for the other blank positionals, yes, because it's considered a minor edit so I skipped those pages. Primefac (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Runs done, everything should be ready to remove the above parameters from their respective templates. Primefac (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Your reverted the name change of "Hubble's law" to to "Hubble-Lemaître law"

Already in October 2018 the International Astronomical Union voted to change the name of "Hubble's law" to "Hubble-Lemaître law". The ensuing adjustments to the Wikipedia page were therefore long overdue. Why did you revert them? On what authority? Please restore the adjustments.
Also, I removed the statement "one of the greatest astronomers of all times" as it is an opinion (even if referenced), not a fact. Please restore the removal. Tavernsenses (talk) 07:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary regarding the Hubble's law, there was a move discussion which said the page should not be renamed. A new discussion will be needed in order to demonstrate that a rename is necessary.

As for Hubble himself, if you read the edit summary it was a partial revert and I only restored the reference you removed. Primefac (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Request

Hi Primefac, I would like to become a AFC reviewer, I have already over 2300+ edits and 20+ articles in wikipedia.I actively take part in AfD and have an understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.I applied here too-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  06:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! I've been away for the last few days and I've got a backlog of "things to do". Please continue to be patient until I can get to the AFCP list. Primefac (talk) 10:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem I will wait for you ,Thanks Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  11:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

PrimeBOT request

Is it possible to remove any blank instances of |3gmobile serv 1= from pages using {{Infobox television channel}}? It's a parameter that was removed some time ago and transclusions leaving it there but blank are bloating Category:Pages using infobox television channel with unknown parameters. Raymie (t • c) 22:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

If they're blank, it might be worth setting |ignoreblank=1; I have yet to see a compelling argument to not do so (I do understand the argument that we shouldn't have any invalid params in IBs, but eventually the blank ones will be removed, and they're not doing any harm sitting there empty). Primefac (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Mail RfC, Again

There's a dispute in a WP:RSN thread re the WP:DAILYMAIL1 RfC, closed by you and Yunshui, Tazerdadog, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Sunrise. I am saying that you didn't mention The Mail on Sunday in your closing remarks and the RfC only affects what you mentioned, Daily Mail. David Gerard is saying that you didn't exclude The Mail On Sunday and the RfC affects it. Can one of you please clarify? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Read it as it was written. I've replied there to that effect (i.e. MoS wasn't discussed, so if it's truly a separate publication then it's not covered). Primefac (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the same as Primefac. The discussion mentioned the MoS only twice and it's not clear whether participants wanted to include/exclude it from the DM discussion. If it's a separate publication then it's not covered, thus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

TfD: R from how-to name

Can you reconsider the closure statement/outcome of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 August 9#Template:R from how-to name? I'm surprised you claim to "understand the rationale" yet proceed to say "Deleting the template will not delete the redirects or change policy." As I said in the very discussion, the rationale isn't that the redirects shouldn't exist, but that regardless of whether we think they should exist, the template is superfluous as the cost outweighs the benefit. So the discussion at VPP has no bearing on the TfD. While it is true that the rationale was not adequately addressed by the participants so a no-consensus outcome would be appropriate if you were to close it now, I don't understand why "revisiting this discussion" should wait for "if consensus determines to eliminate this grouping". That was not the rationale. Nardog (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Trimmed. Primefac (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. So you're not entertaining relisting it? Would there be prejudice against revisiting it if consensus did not determine to eliminate them? Nardog (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

No prejudice against renomination. Primefac (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding TfD Holding cell

Hi, I was lurking in WP:TFD, I thought maybe I can do some work on templates listed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell#Navigation templates. Are those only to be done the discussion participants? If not, are there any set of instructions to be followed to merge those? Can you point me to a direction? - Timbaaa -> ping me 02:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can enact the results of a TFD. Most of the pages listed are merges, but you should read through the discussion (in particular the closing statement) to determine the desired outcome. Let me know if you have any further questions. Primefac (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Merged items at sandbox for this discussion. Is it a proper merging? If no, what should be done to improve? If yes, what is the next step? - Timbaaa -> ping me 14:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Timbaaa, looks good. Now you just need to copy the sandbox content into the main template and redirect {{Animal testing end}} (with an {{r from merge}} template as well). Primefac (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, Completed. Will it take some time for redirect properly by the server? The back links doesn't seem to render the redirected template; or I made a mistake? - Timbaaa -> ping me 01:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Looked at a couple of pages it's transcluded on and I see the new/target template, so likely anything you're seeing is cached from the old versions of the page. Should repopulate fairly quickly. Primefac (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for the help. - Timbaaa -> ping me 02:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Template: Philadelphia Schools

This template is missing the James G. Blaine School (K-8): https://blaine.philasd.org/ Rjstern (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The template isn't protected, so if we've got an article on the school feel free to add it. Primefac (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Advice

Hello Primefac, I wanted to seek your input an AFC issue . I wanted to make a request t be a Draft reviewer there, I am currently an active NPP patroller and I would love to help over at AFC to reduce the backlog as I have been doing at NPP . I have an extensive knowledge on notability especially politics and cooperation/company notability having completed NPP school. I am also a trial CVUA trainer. Over the past few months of ever knowing Wikipedia, I have grown to make it a virtual home of mine. Sadly I am short of the 90 day criteria by a day and would love to help over there, will my request be considered over at AFC? Best regards Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I would wait, but glad to hear you're interested. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, Thanks for the advice, I guess one day is not much of a wait. Best regards Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I have made a request at AFC after reaching the minimum of three months . If you have time you may review my request. Best regards Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

AFC assistance

Hi@Primefac: Greetings.... Can you review this article..? I am Probationary AFC member I have edited this entire article (not mine), It is not advisable to review the article myself and I Believe now the article meets all the notable criteria.You can verify his notability by Internet search and There you will find 100+ independent reliable sources about his name. On the basis of WP:BASIC,WP:NPOLWP:POLOUTCOMES WP:GNG and independent reliable sources This article is acceptable, I think the article protected by Move...can u resolve this issue -Thanks-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  12:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Padavalamkuttanpilla, Please also note that this article has been taken to AfD twice

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. Surendran (politician) (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. Surendran (politician), Regards Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Synoman Barris: Yes, that's right but The large-scale Media coverage He has been receiving After the AFD, sheds light on a Re-review.you can check -- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  18:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Padavalamkuttanpilla, I don’t think it’s ready for main space just yet, the only reason the guy is mentioned is because he was appointed the party leader of the state political party (note: he has never held any political office I.e MP and other staff) this is a form of WP:BLP1E. Regards Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

List of pipeline accidents in the United States in 1978

What do you mean when you say that List of pipeline accidents in the United States in 1978 is reverse copyvio? Please {{ping}} me when you reply. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Jax 0677, as I said on the talk page, you created the article by splitting List of pipeline accidents in the United States (1975–1995). That article was copied to another source, which then looks like "you copied it" when you created the page yesterday. So they copied us, making it "reverse copyvio". Primefac (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Requesting creation of a redirect

Hi! Do you mind creating a redirect (Carryminati -> Ajey Nagar)?

Since the article CarryMinati (with the capital "M") redirects to Ajey Nagar, would it be appropriate to have "Carryminati" redirect to the same article as well?

Note that the aforementioned page I wish to redirect is create-protected.

Thanks! KevTYD (wake up) 19:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to respectfully decline. CarryMinati is a reasonable redirect since that is (or was) the channel name, but an essentially all-lowercase title (ignoring the first letter) seems like a little too far from a "common typo" that we'd usually see in a redirect. Primefac (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Tfd instructions

Would you mind restoring the page as a redirect please? Or did I miss something obvious there? – Uanfala (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I have clarified my close. Primefac (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean no consensus for a cross-namespace redirect? Is there any thing at all wrong with redirects from the template to the project namespaces? One participant in the discussion raised this as in issue, but this was promptly countered. – Uanfala (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Half of the editors involved said that an edit summary was suitable for attribution, indicating that a redirect was not necessary. Primefac (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

.. and the other half said (or implied) that preserving the history was preferable. No meaningful objections were raised against the redirect, while there were guidelines-backed objections to not preserving it. – Uanfala (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding that there was also a middle way (as pointed out in the discussion) – preserving the history but moving it to a subpage of the target. This avoids the need for a template redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Fine. Primefac (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, this should work. I'm sorry if I came across as brusque. – Uanfala (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Primefac (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Zscaler

Hey. I saw you adding checking=yes to the db-g12 on this article. For some more information see User_talk:Cyphoidbomb#Zscaler. In particular, please note my 20:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC) posting there, in which I noted that the content from the https://www.abbreviations.com/ZSCALER site predates the content appearing on the Zscaler article. Thus, it wasn't copied from Wikipedia, but rather the content here was copied from there. Also of note: I have a newly constructed (and without copyrighted content) replacement for the article at Draft:Zscaler. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry. I wasn't trying to fracture the conversation. I saw your posting at Talk:Zscaler after I posted here. I've responded there. We can keep further conversation there if you like. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  No worries. Primefac (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

PrimeBOT run request

Just a placeholder since every request now has it's own subsection. It also provides a spot for general discussion of all these requests and bumps the thread since there is a potential for another request depending on the outcome of a current discussion.

𝒬𝔔 21:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

NYCPT PrimeBOT request

 Task complete.

I just noticed that Template:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation was folded under Template:WikiProject New York City back in MAR 14 (see Template talk:WikiProject New York City#Protected edit request on 28 February 2014). However it appears that Template:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation still has ≈150 transclusions. I suspect this is because conversion has been executed manually on an ad hoc basis over the years. As with the last bot run I requested it is not possible to convert the template to a wrapper and have AnomieBOT take care of things without creating duplicates (e.g. Talk:Metropolitan Transportation Authority Police Department).

Quick sketch of what is needed

Case {{WikiProject New York City|class=p|importance=q}} {{WikiProject New York City Public Transportation|class=p|importance=r}} Output {{WikiProject New York City|class=p|importance=q|transportation=yes|transportation-importance=r}} Case {{WikiProject New York City Public Transportation|class=s|importance=t}} Output {{WikiProject New York City|class=s|importance=|transportation=yes|transportation-importance=t}}

Relatedly I noticed a bug in last run (see Special:Diff/943458578) in case it hasn't already been brought to your attention.

I should be around again some time before the 3rd, so if you don't catch me today I'll try to respond to any questions by then; thanks for your help. (please ping on reply)

𝒬𝔔 23:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. Primefac (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I've removed all both-template uses and converted it to a wrapper for now, but let me know if you want it substed out of existence. Primefac (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I was planning to subst them all; I just updated the documentation to place it in the appropriate category. AFAIK the only remaining step is to add it to User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force to get AnomieBOT on the job, so if you could get that done I'd appreciate it, but if there's some procedural reason I need to be the one to write up the edit request, it's neither urgent nor important so I can get to it later.

𝒬𝔔 00:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Anticipated PrimeBOT task 30 request

 Task complete.

Thought I'd drop a friendly note that per discussion on WikiProject Former countries a bot run will likely be needed to complete the merge of Template:WikiProject Former countries and Template:WikiProject Ottoman Empire. I anticipate making the formal request once the template work is complete some time between the 18th and 31st. I figured more advanced notice is better so you can more easily work this into your schedule. If you have any questions feel free to ask, and if you have a preferred window of time please let me know, thanks. (please ping on reply)

𝒬𝔔 23:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I can look into that. I apologize, I have forgotten to look into the previous request, but I'll add that to my to-do list. Primefac (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

No worries, I'm a big fan of There is no deadline and NOTMANDATORY. I understand you'll get to it when you get to it. In any event I just filed the edit request at WikiProject Former countries to convert WikiProject Ottoman Empire to a taskforce, so feel free to go ahead with the bot run any time after that is implemented. I think we've done this enough to where I don't need to detail the particulars; the parameters are |Ottoman=yes and |Ottoman-importance=foo. Other than that, if you have any questions I was planning on checking back in on things tomorrow and the day after, even if only briefly, so feel free to ask away. (please ping on reply)

𝒬𝔔 01:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Quick update, Template:WikiProject Former countries has been updated so you may commence this bot run at your convenience.

𝒬𝔔 22:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. Primefac (talk) 01:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Bot's running, once the dups are taken care of I'll convert to a wrapper and subst it away. Primefac (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks good so far, thanks

𝒬𝔔 00:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Another PrimeBOT run request

 Task complete.

I noticed another WPNYC taskforce, namely WikiProject New York City/Theatre where the template merge was not fully implemented. So PrimeBOT is needed for the merge, at least for the duplicates. Template:WikiProject New York City has already been updated so you can start the run at your convenience; Parameters are |theatre=yes and |theatre-importance=foo, if you have a little extra time I'd also appreciate it if you would wrapperize Template:WikiProject New York Theatre at the conclusion of the run, but if not I can get around to it. Feel free to ping if you have any questions and thanks for your ongoing help.

𝒬𝔔 00:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure thing. Primefac (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Dups merged, wrapper created. Primefac (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Likewise looking good, I'll try to check back in on everything sometime between Friday and Sunday.

𝒬𝔔 00:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Related request for protection removal

So I was about to write up an RFP request to remove protection from Template:WikiProject Ottoman Empire when I went back to check the page history and noticed that you were the sysop that protected it; since you are currently active I believe courtesy dictates I discuss this with you personally.

The previous justification for TPROT doesn't seem to apply any longer since it is no longer HIGHRISK; having read the ECPGUIDE and SEMIGUIDE I don't think lower levels of protection can be justified under policy either. While it's unlikely to need much future editing, it's equally, if not even more unlikely that an obscure wrapper will be chosen as a target for spam, vandalism, or other such nonsense. I'll defer to your judgement, however it is my recommendation that the template be unprotected at this time.

𝒬𝔔 03:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Done. Primefac (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Yet another PrimeBOT run request

 Task complete.

I know I've been asking alot of you recently, but another bot run will likely be needed once the edit request to merge Template:WikiProject Chinese in New York City into Template:WikiProject New York City goes through (see here). Parameters are |chinese=yes and |chinese-importance=foo; once the dups are taken care of feel free to wrapperize and subst away, thanks.

𝒬𝔔 16:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Primefac (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Suppression

I had an idea recently about the suppression templates and wanted to bring it to your attention because you've helped create those templates. My discussion is here. I posted there at first, not realizing that {{Uw-selfinfo}} and others also used the same image. I have already changed the image on the {{suppressed}} template but I am interested to see if there are other ideas, as I think the original yellow smiley face does a much better job of getting young users' attention than the blue letter "i" that just looks like every other message they've seen. Thanks, —Soap— 14:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, and I've replied as such there. Good thinking. Primefac (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

ECP templates

Hey Primefac. Thanks for dealing with my laundry list at RfPP. Also wanted to follow up on one you ticked that wasn't changed, Template:Metadata Population DE-RP (-> TE). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

first article me

Hello dear user, for the first article I wanted to create, I translated it from Persian, Which is in the Amir Tataloo discography.Do you think I was able to write a good article as my first article or not? What is your opinion?Ap ^{(Talk • contribs)} 19:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, we don't list album's track listing on a general Discography page. I think it's a good idea to add it to the Amir Tataloo page, but right now there's not enough content to merit its own page. I highly suggest reading through WP:DISCOGSTYLE, which better outlines how discography pages are set up. Primefac (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Task 30 request: Infobox television channel long-deprecated/duplicated parameter cleanup

Can I get PrimeBOT to remove any instances, blank and populated, of these parameters from {{Infobox television channel}}:

|dummy parameter= |terr avail= |cable avail= |sat avail= |3gmobile serv 1=

and to convert

|adsl serv 1= (numbers up to 20) and |adsl chan 1= (numbers up to 20)

to

|iptv serv 1= (numbers up to 20) and |iptv chan 1= (numbers up to 20)

The parameters for removal have not been supported, mostly since December 28, 2005 (!!), and continue to be present in quite a few articles, and in the "avail" cases, populated by dozens of pages (something like 90 pages populated for |terr avail=). This should help remove some pages from the tracking category and also prevent pages from creeping into it. More cleanup will wait until after the revamp I have an RfC on, but this is part of a parallel effort to reduce unknown parameter calls. Raymie (t • c) 23:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Primefac (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Great, except the tracking changes caused dozens of articles where the bot didn't run that used the ADSL parameter names to pile up in Category:Pages using infobox television channel with unknown parameters. Raymie (t • c) 04:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. You wanted me to change those parameters, and I could only do that by putting those parameters into the category. They still show up properly on the article, and as soon as I'm at my bot's machine I'll finish the changeover. Primefac (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

FYI, looks like one page link got broken resulting in a revert (Special:Diff/976084172). Raymie (t • c) 05:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks like a GIGO issue, but I'll see if I can create a workaround. Primefac (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Another PrimeBOT request

There are 429 articles in Category:Pages using infobox shopping mall with unsupported parameters and all of them because they use |shopping_mall_name= instead of |name=. Can PrimeBOT run on those to empty the cat and then remove the undocumented parameter? Raymie (t • c) 20:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
• A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
• A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
• An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Portal question

Hi Primefac. I figured I'd asked you about this because you're quite knowlegable about templates, etc. It seems that quite a number of portals have been set up to include blurbs (usually the leads) of articles and this seems to be being done mostly by template transclusion. In many cases the transclusion includes the infobox image which sometimes turns out to be non-free content. Since non-free content isn't supposed to be being used in the portal namespace per WP:NFCC#9, such files are generally flag for review by a bot. Cleaning this up when the image is directly added to portal page is quite simple because all you need to do is remove the image syntax. Things are a bit trickier when the image is being transcluded, however, and in such cases I often add <noinclude></noinclude> syntax to the article where the image is being used. This seems to work, but I'm never whether it's the best solution to this problem.

The latest example I came across was File:The Wild Bunch.JPG. It was being transcluded into Portal:1960s, most likely as part of the transclusion of The Wild Bunch. I seemed to have resolved the problem for now, but I'm wondering whether there's a way to somehow stop all portals from including non-free images when they transclude articles.

Apparently using template transclusion for portals was agreed upon here but nothing in that discussion seems to make mention of non-free content transclusion (it probably never crossed anyone's mind). Maybe there's a way to tweak the syntax in some way at the portal's end that doesn't involve adding "noinclude" to individual article infoboxes? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

According to Template:Transclude random excerpt's documentation, it is supposed to remove non-free images. Line 263 of the related module has

	if not fileDescription or fileDescription == "" or mw.ustring.match(fileDescription, "[Nn]on%-free") then return false end

Which is basically only matching the phrase "non-free"; I honestly don't know if it's matching the wikitext or the output, but I'm guessing the former, since the code of File:The Wild Bunch doesn't use the words "non-free" because it's transcluding {{Film poster fur}}. If I'm wrong about that, then I have no idea why the module isn't working, but if I am right you'll probably need to have someone update the code to better match what actually should be looked for in the code. Hope this helps. Primefac (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

It's definitely matching the wikitext (the previous line is local fileDescription, fileTitle = getContent(page), where the getContent function calls title:getContent(), which is a Scribunto built-in function documented at mw:Extension:Scribunto/Lua reference manual#Title objects as Returns the (unparsed) content of the page, or nil if there is no page .... The module should probably be updated to also exclude files whose wikitext fur. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Primefac and Pppery for trying to figure this out. Would updating the module be a major change that might adversely affect lots of portals or will it be just a tweak? I’m asking this because I’m not sure what the next step should be and who to now query about fixing this. Finally, many of the templates used for WP:FURs were created at different times by different editors and the naming is not always consistent. Perhaps “fixing” that might be another way of trying to resolve this? — Marchjuly (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:St. Lucie Public Schools G6

How are you going to redirect a draft to something that is already at the same name? Meters (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Like this. Primefac (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I understand how to do it if we actually wanted a redirect from draft space to article space, but why would we want to that? It's a copy of an existing article that was incorrectly made in draft space. Meters (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

There are 449 pages in Category:AfC submissions declined as already existing. Should we G6 them all? No, because as far as I'm aware there is no consensus for that; otherwise, we would delete duplicates instead of declining. There are many reasons duplicate pages may exist in the draft space, and while I suspect most of them eventually get G13'd, we shouldn't just go around deleting them because they exist. Primefac (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

This has nothing to do whatever other duplicate articles may exist. This particular draft was created by mistake, by someone who was trying to move the article. He asked a the TeaHouse, the article was properly moved, the draft serves no purpose, and neither does the redirect as far as I can see. Meters (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

And this is not a case of a duplicate under a viable alternative title being turned into a redirect, since it is the same title. Meters (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Whatever. clearly it's not a G6 since you object. Meters (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The C of E AN closure

Hi Primefac, reading through your closing statement, I can't help but wonder if it could use some clarification. I think your intent was to write that Boing's proposal, BlueMoonset's proposal, and mine, all had consensus; but as written, it isn't clear that the wording of my proposal was that any independent reviewer could veto The C of E's hooks without further discussion, which is not usually the case at DYK, in that extended discussion and appeal is permitted. I see that The C of E has said he intends to appeal, but regardless, it would help to clarify what he is appealing. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, CoE was wanting an "appeal" (for lack of a better term) in order to indicate that the veto must be grounded in policy, as he was concerned that anyone could veto for any reason, meaning that people who didn't like him could veto "just because". That appeal was withdrawn as it was indicated that the disruptions should happen first (i.e. after any major concerns). I guess I'm not entirely sure what you're asking me to clarify. Primefac (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the appeal, thanks for letting me know about that. I am asking for bullet 3 of your closure to reflect the proposal it draws from. At the moment, it says what The C of E must do if a hook is vetoed, but not that any reviewer may veto them, which is the critical part. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Can not any reviewer put in a veto for a hook, for anyone? Primefac (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Briefly, no, they cannot. The long version is that it's complicated, because the rules are not codified; the review process is run largely on good faith and common sense. Typically, when a reviewer rejects a hook, nominators work with them to come up with an acceptable alternative. Otherwise, there are frequent requests for second opinions, and always the option of an appeal at WT:DYK (note that "reviewer" can mean multiple people for a given nomination). The C of E is the only editor I am aware of who will utterly reject reviewers' decisions, and to endlessly bludgeon such discussions because he will not consider offering an alternative hook, and will not consider alternatives offered by others. Needless to say, this bickering typically occurs with hooks that many of us consider inappropriate. Hence the proposal, which offers a way for reviewers to cut this bickering short, and compel The C of E to offer a new hook. To sum up, current practice allows and even encourages editors to debate hooks with a reviewer. That is what the proposal explicitly disallows for The C of E, because he bludgeons that process. A reviewer's rejection now carries greater weight on nominations by The C of E, and this is missing from your closure statement. If you'd like another editor to weigh in on whether this is an accurate representation of current practice, I'm sure BlueMoonset, who has been working tirelessly at DYK for a long long time, would oblige. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I see where you're coming from. I'll add back in the first part of your proposal to the close. Primefac (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Cheers. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

		A beer on me!
		Thanks for all the time and effort you've put into this over the past few weeks.

So I have a feeling I'll be around again eventually to ask for more PrimeBOT help, but there should at least be enough time before the next request for this thread to archive. I doubt I can fully return the favor any time soon, but if you do have some time-insensitive stuff you need help with, by which I mean you don't mind which month it is finished in, then feel free to hit me with a ping, and I'll see what I can do, and again thanks. (please ping on reply)

𝒬𝔔 21:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Acc Block

Hello Primefac! Please I'll like to plead on the behalf of User:Mbagwu francisca whose account was blocked by you due to continuous vandal/spam/EF issues. She is quite a new volunteer who joined wikipedia five months ago and haven't made any edit until recently when she wanted to make an edit. Given she's a new volunteer, she was not aware same wikipedia account can be used across multiple Wikimedia projects. So she was attempting to create another one, as claimed when her account was blocked by you.

Please do unblock her account and I'll do well to guide her in her subsequent activities on wikipedia. Thanks for your understanding. Ptinphusmia (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Um... User:Mbagwu francisca isn't blocked on enwiki (and has never been blocked), so that's about as far as my blocking ability would go. Are you sure you have the right account? Primefac (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO and ownership claim

Hi, Primefac. Please have a look at Talk:Transactions_of_the_Krylov_State_Research_Center regarding copyright violation and contesting speedy delete by claiming as the owner of the contents. Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 07:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The editor has removed the copyright materials from the page ~ Amkgp 💬 09:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. Just remember that if someone rewrites the material and you haven't already let an admin know about it, you should request a {{revdel}} so that the copyvio material can be removed. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, Thanks for letting me know this, will apply next time when applicable/required. ~ Amkgp 💬 13:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For your creation of {{Family name hatnote}}, a brilliant idea that helps standardise a whole swathe of articles, and deals with the complex issue of identity in an unexpected and clever way. Well done!! Tom (LT) (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Hlist not appearing correctly

Do you have any idea why in this article, the values of attribute 'തൊഴിൽ' in the infobox seems to show in a straight line instead of two lines? Meaning, it is not appearing in two lines. I checked with many of the templates, but I couldn't find a solution. I also have a doubt if something needs to be done in its CSS file or not. Adithyak1997 (talk) 07:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

My guess is that {{hlist}} inherently has some sort of "nowrap" embedded in it, making the infobox stretch to accommodate it instead of wrapping when it gets to a good "new line" point. That being said, I don't see that sort of behaviour on enwiki articles... Having zero experience with mlwiki, though, I can only guess. I converted it to use flatlist instead, which seems to have fixed the issue. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Batwoman (season 1)

I apologise on behalf of User:Brojam who restored it without allowing Draft:Batwoman (season 1) to enter the mainspace. Could you please delete it or perform a round-robin move? --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: The draft is just a copy of the main article with absolutely no new content apart from more guest actors listed; also too soon per MOS:TVSPLIT. - Brojam (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Brojam, but Batwoman (season 2) (which has just begun filming) is not like that. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

That means nothing. Not the first time we have a season article for one/or some season(s) and not others (especially the Arrowverse shows). Just means we need to work on the season 1 draft to not have it be a complete copy of the main article and make it ready for the mainspace. - Brojam (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Kailash29792, I think I'm going to default to Brojam on this one. I hate to admit I forgot about the guidelines for standalone season pages (having made a few of these errors myself in the past). Primefac (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so I only just came across this discussion, after I moved the article into the mainspace. However, I stand by my move. It makes zero sense to have a Season 2 article and not a Season 1 one, based only on the fact of the similarity of content, which can be (and now has been) trimmed down after the split. TVSPLIT also actually supports this split, in how the article contains season-specific content and is not just an episode and ratings table with one or two reviews. The article also completely passes GNG. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

If there's a Season 2 (which there wasn't at the time) then by all means move away. Primefac (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Removed comment

re [2] yes, I cocked up an edit conflict resolution and then edit conflicted with you when restoring it. Sorry. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Figured as much, just took me a second to figure out where my comment went! Primefac (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all

To the dozen or so folks who reverted vandalism here tonight, thanks. Primefac (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft - Sainthill Eardley-Wilmot

Hi Primefac, how are you? you recently reverted one of my speedy deletion tag on this Draft:Sir Sainthill Eardley-Wilmot. I requested the speedy deletion under "non-controversial maintenance edit" because similar page already exist under the following title - Sainthill Eardley-Wilmot. Both, draft and the live page are made by the same person. Could you advise how to proceed further into this? -Hatchens (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Honestly couldn't say if I misread the editor or the timestamp, but something made me think it was created by two different editors. Made that close together, you're right, there's not much point in keeping the draft. Thanks for the note. Primefac (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Marriage § New problem

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Marriage § New problem. Hi Primefac, would you be so kind as to offer a third opinion on the proposed implementation of this code on Template:Marriage? Thanks ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I can put it on my list. Primefac (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC) Replied. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Just so you know, I've been about halfway to yanking the permission for a week or two now. The only thing that's stayed my hand is that this template is the only issue I've observed (it may be the only template the editor is editing...). The other remedy I've been entertaining is a page block. --Izno (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough; thanks for letting me know. Hopefully it doesn't come to that, but I know all too well how easy it is to get change-blind to issues on a template you're passionate about. Primefac (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

After AGF'ing for far too long, I've given up trying to work in good faith with this editor and unwatched that Template/Template talk page, but I will support any action either of you chooses to take. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. If I feel like your opinion will be valued, I'll ping. Primefac (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: I appreciate the feedback above, and I'm sorry if my prior edits, albeit made in good faith, had been disruptive. I'm aware that I've been too WP:BOLD in my approach, and so I haven't edited the template since 23 August and will not make another edit to the template without the approval of another TE. I'd much appreciate if anyone here could review my proposed changes to the template for their suitability. Thanks all, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 13:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I did see your ping, just haven't had a chance to reply yet. Primefac (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Neveselbert, if the changes have been tested, discussed, and the general consensus is that it works as intended with no major issues, then yes, go for it. Primefac (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, would it be OK if I pinged the editors above to discuss the changes? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Might be a good idea, given that I just re-read the thread where I was initially pinged and see that Jonesey had some concerns. Primefac (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, just wanted to be sure so I wouldn't overstep WP:CANVASS. Would it be alright if I pinged them here? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Ping there is probably better, since it's actually where the discussion takes place. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Primefac. Jonesey has since stated on their talk that they are "going to decline" any further requests for comment. I've tried to allay their concerns at Template talk:Marriage#New problem and I'm not sure what else I can do. Can you help please? Thanks, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Go for it. You've done the best you can to attempt to fix the issue. Primefac (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Fox News Reliable source Wired article

Hey! Wired wrote an article about your close of the Fox News RFC and determined Wikipedia declared Fox News isn't a reliable source. Can you confirm whether that is an accurate portrayal of your close or not? And if not, would you write the author of that article?--v/r - TP 06:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I had kind of forgotten to see if/when the article came out. With the exception of the "catchy" headline and the phrase In an aggressive move that is anything but sitting back it's fairly accurate towards the close itself. Most of what is there pertaining to the discussion and the close was said either by me or Lee during the course of talks with the author, and I did my best during our discussions to indicate that we didn't "have it out" for Fox. Primefac (talk) 09:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to resurrect an old conversation, I had problems with getting a new cell phone and 2FA issues. The discussion was closed as no consensus and yet the article states "a panel of Wikipedia administrators in July declared that Fox News would no longer be considered “generally reliable". No consensus would mean one of two things, either A) Fox News was already considered unreliable and "no longer" is inaccurate or, B) Fox News is not considered unreliable and "no consensus" was not the close. But the no consensus close and "no longer considered [reliable]" appear to be in contradiction. Am I misunderstanding something about your close?--v/r - TP 21:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

We were using it in the literal sense that no one can agree (there is "no consensus") about what to do about it (specifically politics and science). Because of that, those topics need to be investigated, and Fox is no longer reliable for all/general purposes. Primefac (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

What I am asking is, "no longer" means change. "No consensus" means no change. So is it no longer or no consensus? The closing administrator may have to answer questions about the close someday and I'd really like to have this dichotomy resolved before that day comes. If you mean, "Fox News continues to not be a reliable source for all/general purpose" then just say that.--v/r - TP 21:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Right, and those are two separate discussions so you can use both phrases. Fox was considered reliable for just about everything prior to this close, and (from Wired) it is now "no longer" considered reliable (for politics and science). The question/RFC asked "is Fox News reliable?", to which the answer was "there is no consensus on its reliability (for politics and science)." You can have both responses without having any contradiction. Primefac (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

If that's your interpretation, that is definitely an admin super vote. No consensus means no change on Wikipedia. Carefully interpreting the question to have no consensus mean what you want it to mean is manipulation. For example, if I were to hold a discussion "Is Fox News unreliable" and it also reached no consensus, does that mean Fox News is now reliable? No. No consensus means no change from status quo on Wikipedia. Do you care to discuss this with the other admins or should I bring the discussion straight to AN from here?--v/r - TP 22:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'm just going to go ahead and ping the other administrators to streamline the process: @Rosguill: @Lee Vilenski:. I have already written up my WP:AN RfC on the issue and I'd like to email it to each of you to ask if you have any points of contention with how I've framed your views before I post it.--v/r - TP 23:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is being brought up in the context of Wired's coverage, we wrote quite clearly in the close that for science and political referencing there is no consensus regarding the reliability of Fox News, and it should be used with caution to verify contentious claims. For other subjects Fox News is generally considered reliable. There's already been follow up discussions at at RSP's talk page and I think the matter has been put firmly to bed, pending any new discussions on Fox's reliability. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I mean this in the nicest way possible, but... did you read the close? We used "no consensus" in the literal meaning of the word, not the "no consensus means status quo" pseudo-Wiki-lawyering jargon, but as in "the opinions are evenly split on whether Fox is reliable." There were four very specific options that we parsed out, and wrote two paragraphs and a three-bulleted list specifying exactly what we meant by "no consensus".

With regard to your second message, I am willing to comment/remark on your future AN post, as I am curious as to your concerns you will be bringing before the admin crew that haven't already been addressed in locations such as RSP. Primefac (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

If you think this has to do with Fox News, you're gravely misunderstanding my point. My point is on the procedures of RfCs and how I feel you have no followed Wikipedia policy. I'll email you my draft and maybe you'll understand.--v/r - TP 23:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've read it, and have nothing to really comment on other than a) I would encourage you to not create the thread as a formal RFC, and b) you might want to link to this thread instead of my user page, since my talk is getting a little long at the moment and it would be more useful than a userlink. I'll save my comments/replies to the post as a whole for the post itself. Primefac (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll wait until the final closing sysop comments before posting.--v/r - TP 23:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Having read your email, I think you should make sure to read through the RSP discussion I linked above. The purpose of RSN and RSP is to determine and document the opinions of the editing community on source's usage. This is distinct from a policy or content dispute because the middle ground of no consensus is itself informative and a stable resting point, whereas in a content or policy dispute a no consensus outcome would lead to article instability if we didn't have an overarching conservative norm towards the status quo. It's common practice at RSP to reclassify sources as no consensus if that is the outcome of the most recent RSN discussion; to do otherwise would be unnecessarily bureaucratic. There are many, many sources on which the community does not have a clear consensus, but the basis of your complaint would make it nigh impossible for us to report that information. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take a few days to dig into RSP more to see if there is something I am not understanding.--v/r - TP 00:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding TfD Holding cell: To Convert

Hai it's me again, in order to process this convert; does the mainspace usages(there are 7) are to converted to use {{Simple horizontal timeline}} ? Or anything else to be done? I think redirect is not possible since they implement different set of parametes.

P.S.: I looked to work on nav templates, but all of them seems to need some technical understanding of articles linked in them. → Timbaaa_talk 02:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I suspect they will require a full conversion; it is often the case where participants will only look at the visual output of two templates being merged without looking at the actual code. Primefac (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, Meaning the source has to be converted to achieve the same(or similar) visual output, right? Should I have to mention at holding cell, that it is being worked on? → Timbaaa_talk 02:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. You can mark it as "in progress" at TFDH, but that's entirely up to you - somehow I don't think there will be much in the way of edit conflicts dealing with that one. Primefac (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, I think, there is a problem(not exactly sure about it):

• Template:Horizontal timeline is in the process of deletion. So, the translucions are being converted to Template:Simple horizontal timeline.
• Template:Simple horizontal timeline invokes Module:Simple horizontal timeline.
• Module:Simple horizontal timeline uses Template:Horizontal timeline in its Lua code.

I'm seeing a loop here, If Template:Horizontal timeline is deleted, Module:Simple horizontal timeline won't work; in turn Template:Simple horizontal timeline won't work. → Timbaaa_talk 14:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

There's no loop; the documentation of the module is just pointing to the wrong template, it should say "implements {{simple horizontal timeline}}". Then again, the /doc is largely irrelevant, I could say it "implements {{infobox}}" and it wouldn't actually change how the module works. Primefac (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I'll get on with conversion. → Timbaaa_talk 01:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Should the user space usages also be converted? → Timbaaa_talk 12:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Normally/ideally, yes, but the "newest" user space was last edited in 2017, with most of them sitting idle for almost a decade. I think removing them or commenting them out is perfectly acceptable in this case. Primefac (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I've removed all instances except the one template that's at TFD right now. Primefac (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

 Great! → Timbaaa_talk 14:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Another one

Hi, can you look into this sandbox for the this merger? → Timbaaa_talk 00:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Primefac:, you might have missed this in yesterdays choas. → Timbaaa _talk 00:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I did, thanks. Looks good. Primefac (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, I don't know, how to merge properly. → Timbaaa _talk 00:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Copy the sandbox into the main template, then redirect the other template. Primefac (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done thanks. → Timbaaa _talk 00:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

AfC

Hey Primefac, I have requested that my name be fixed at AfC participants because I have recently changed my username from "AaqibAnjum". Hope that, it is done soon. Regards. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 15:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I tend to not look at AFCP all that often, but I've changed your name on the list. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

My 2FA

Hi Primefac, i'm having trouble with the scratch-codes for my 2FA, they aren't working. Would you know if there is a way of removing 2FA from my account? I'm having the worst time with technology at the moment, first my authentification device dies, then the wifi card on my laptop (where i'm fortunately logged in) is playing hell. I have SHA-512 identity in my user page source code if extra confirmation is needed. Thanks, Zindor (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The instructions for removing 2FA are at H:DISABLE2FA. Hope this helps. Primefac (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks i had tried that but i hadn't realised that i needed to enter four of the alphanumeric blocks instead of just one block. All sorted now. When i've used scratch codes on other systems, they get supplied the same way, but i've never had to enter a whole line of them. What do you think about the idea of adding "16-character" to the first line of the section so it would read "When you set up 2FA, you'll be given a number of 16-character scratch codes". Thoughts? Zindor (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

If it helps future readers, go for it. Primefac (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Perjury in India - deleted whole lot of effort/ work with no backup...

Hi Prmefac... I feel frustrated as a newbie editor because a whole lot of original content got deleted dur to some comparatively tiny copyright violation which could have been fixed...

How do i retrieve the page and fix? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishal144 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The copyrighted material was 90% of the prose (not really "tiny") and a full third of the total size, which is why I deleted it. However, I am willing to restore it to Draft:Perjury in India so that you do not have to recreate the table from scratch. Please make sure that everything you include is written in your own words, and please make sure you have a few more references to demonstrate it is an issue worth having an article. Primefac (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

2020 Olympics

Hi Primefac, although obviously a speedy close was warranted, and I supported as much myself, I'm going to have to protest at your statement that "The only reason why this moratorium should be lifted is if the sponsors/officials/countries change their official naming scheme". That expressly flouts Wikipedia's WP:COMMONNAME policy, as explained also at WP:OFFICIALNAMES. We do not go by what the "sponsors" or "officials" call it, we go by what a majority of reliable sources say. To prohibit a further request unless the official name is changed runs counter to that. Obviously nobody has a WP:CRYSTALBALL here, but I'm sceptical that the media will continue calling it the "2020 Olympics" if it actually goes ahead next year. Could I please request you to soften that stipulation in some way? Maybe just give it a time-limited moratorium, so we can re-evaluate when the event is much closer. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm still going to call it an indefinite moratorium, because someone will come in on 1 Jan and say "it's a new year!", but I've added in a slight softening. Primefac (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Quick clarification

Hi. Thanks for the comments regarding what needs to be changed on the page I'm creating. Do red carpet interviews that are on YouTube count as reliable, independent sources? Couldn't see mention of things along those lines. Also, how many external interviews/articles/reviews would be, approximately, required to have a chance of being notable? Thanks, WallaceEMann (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC).

Interviews are considered to be primary sources, and while they are usually okay for confirming uncontroversial information (such as a subject's date of birth) they do not necessarily contribute to the determination of notability. As far as "number of sources" goes, it mostly depends on the length of the page; a one- or two-paragraph stub may only need 3 good references to demonstrate notability, but once you start getting into multiple paragraphs and multiple sections it becomes an issue of whether everything is properly referenced. Primefac (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Scam

Sir I found you through wikipedia can you help me to create this page (Yash Gawli) an administrator was asking money for publishing this page he contact me through social media — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4043:69A:F171:0:0:12A4:80A0 (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

First, you should never have to pay someone to write a Wikipedia article; anyone can write an article for free. Second, if you want to request someone write an article about you, see WP:RA. If you want to write about yourself (which I would strongly discourage) I would first read WP:YFA and then use the Article wizard to create a draft page, which will be reviewed by experienced editors after submission.

Just as a final note, if you're being asked for money by "an administrator" please let me know (either here or via email), because a) I suspect they're not an administrator, b) if they say they're an administrator, they shouldn't be, or c) they say they're Admin XYZ but they're just saying that in an email or whatever to try and trick you. Either way, I'd like to know. Primefac (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Sir I have proof how can I provide that and I would like tell that my social media manager tried to create article since our area ip address block as per wikipedia volunteer said to me and sir I'm not editor I'm subject and someone also was Miss using my information which I have corrected now but how can I get the right way to describe that my fimlography and awards blong to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4043:2D92:3763:0:0:B988:B009 (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Send me an email, and include any relevant screenshot(s) such as the conversation you had with the other user. Also, if someone's misusing your information, any screenshot of that would be helpful too. Primefac (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks sir I'm providing but I would like inform you that my name is protected so only and administration can create it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4043:2D92:3763:0:0:B988:B009 (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

That's a different issue altogether, but I've seen your email and will look into it. Primefac (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you mail and avidence those who break wikipedia as well subject person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4043:2D02:199C:0:0:B9C8:810 (talk) 08:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

label Article

Hello, I apologize, why did you tell me about the label Article Did you not inform me? And the article is a translation of the Persian version. ---IMani ^{→ (Talk) :)} 16:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

IMani, That should have been done by Looplips, as they initially placed the deletion tag. I only converted it to the correct CSD rationale. Primefac (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse ping list

Hello Primefac! I am compiling a list of editors willing to be pinged to the Teahouse, intended to be used by regulars to solicit assistance from editors with area-specific expertise when needed, most importantly when a post is about to get archived without answers (happens rarely but often enough). It is not intended to be a serious commitment to answer all queries; rather it's intended to assure regulars that listed editors may be pinged for help without causing offence or irritation. I have you provisionally listed for OS/Revdel (because you answer most of my OS emails) but I should think you would be overqualified for >50% of the listed areas. Anyway, tldr; I was wondering if you would be interested in being listed. You are of course free to add or remove yourself anytime. I would happily do it for you, also. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The draft is at User:Usedtobecool/Tea. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm always willing to be pinged (within reason) for advice or assistance. Do you want me to add my name or will you take care of it? Primefac (talk) 11:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Primefac! Probably best that you do it, since before I could do it myself, I would have to anyway ask which of the categories to list you under, and you'd have to go back to the page to see which ones before you answer. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamad Hassan Khamis

You have deleted the article, please can you close the AFD? GiantSnowman 16:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, though you could have done it yourself. I nuked a bunch of stuff under G5, didn't really look to see if anything was nominated. Primefac (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

True, but I had !voted in the AFD and didn't want to be seen to be INVOLVED...thanks though. GiantSnowman 20:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair point. I vaguely recall at one point that a bot would come close those automatically, but given the last few times I've speedied something with an open AFD, it must not be running any more... Primefac (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

PrimeBOT for motorcycle club template

Hey fac. Would you be able to use PrimeBOT on implementing Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_24#Template:Infobox_motorcycle_club? See source of Template:Infobox motorcycle club/sandbox for parameter mapping. Cheers. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Was a slight double redirect issue with {{Infobox Motorcycle club}}. I've updated that template to redirect directly to {{Infobox organization}}, since I guess that's an easier fix than editing the transclusions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Gah! I've been doing this for years and still forget to deal with the double redirs. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

By the way, can I ask how do you deal with multiple infoboxes on an article? eg re task 18, that regex alone would also match another infobox [3]. Do you tend to do the replace in two stages (eg find all relevant infoboxes, do replacements inside, replace said infobox with replaced infobox) or some other way? Reason for Q is I'm wondering how I can best deal with this issue in ProcBot. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, the good old days of being somewhat inexperienced in AWB. To use that regex, I set the find/replace to only run when it's found inside of the relevant template ("In Template Call" Rule). These days, I've got a module that uses RemoveTemplateParameter, which will remove the listed params in a given template without all the hassle. Primefac (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmm... I took a very quick glance at AWB's source and can't tell what regex it uses for doing the "in template call" part properly. Or is it not regex but a parser instead? Bit lazy to make up my own parser, and regex recursion (to deal with nested templates) seems a slight pain & somewhat inefficient – although admittedly recursion isn't my strong suit. Any ideas on a regex that might achieve the same thing, & doesn't miss some edge scenarios? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

In the "advanced settings" for find/replace, there is a Rule option for "In template call". As long as you make all of your regex a subrule of that template call rule, it will only check for the regex (like what's in the BRFA you link above) that is in that template.

Or am I completely misreading what you're asking, and you're not using AWB but still want a regex that will work inside of a template? Primefac (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

2nd case, not using AWB ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

You'd likely have to replicate some of AWB's WikiFunctions/Tools, for example NestedTemplateRegex and RemoveTemplateParameter, that way you could pull out one specific template and then modify/remove any parameters necessary inside that template call. Primefac (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:EngvarO spelling and Template:EngvarB spelling

Hey, could you explain how the TfD result was redirect when most of the people supporting said specifically to delete the template and replace it? --Gonnym (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I can't, because I'm not sure. I've updated my closes and am currently doing the required followup. Primefac (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 August 28#IPA help talk editnotices

In the nomination, I wrote After deletion, these pages need to be salted, or else the bot will immediately recreate them, but you don't appear to have salted them. (for clarity, the bot I am talking about is JJMC89 bot II). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

From my interpretation of the task and the bot's user page, it will only create notices when the page is in Category:Wikipedia information pages, which is not true for any of those pages. If I am not correct (which we'll know in about three hours when the bot does its run) I am more than happy to create-protect them. Primefac (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Good point. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Concerning My Blocking

If you read my message above you would have seen that my reversion to "domestic terrorists" was entirely accidental. My block is unjustified.ExplosiveResults (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Once or twice I can see happening, but you did it three times. At the very least that means you're not paying attention (which sometimes is just as bad as intentional vandalism), and thus I do not feel inclined to lift the restriction at this point. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Primefac if you're not going to semi-protect the page please consider blocking 82.81.85.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Some of their earlier edits are beyond the pale, such as this, this, this, this, this and this. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I took the liberty of partial blocking for a week. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikibooks message

In case you're wondering about the message posted for you at Wikibooks, see this thread for background. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I figured it was something like that, since generally when I see more than three paragraphs of someone complaining about a block I tend to ignore it. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

renaming bot

Would it be okay to rename Usernamekiran BOT to KiranBOT now? courtesy ping to Headbomb, and Xaosflux. And to Izno as well while we are at it —usernamekiran (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
PS: the BRFA has been closed as approved. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

There's no issue WP:BOTPOL-wise, if that's what you're asking. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: That's what I was unsure of. Thanks for the quick response. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

is/was

Hi, sorry to trouble you, but as I noticed your previous fix to the "is/was" issue on Live from Here, and was looking up prescedent and MOS, you reverted my own change.

I was looking at other radio shows from the past. Obviously, ones that are presently broadcast all used "is", but the examples that I pulled up such as Bing Crosby Entertains, Hollywood Star Time (interview program), Kevin and Bean, Shell Chateau, London After Dark all use "was". I did find Gene Autry's Melody Ranch, which finished broadcast in 1956, and uses "is". Not sure if its just a fluke, though.

I was about to add a comment in-line that said "if you refer to still-available podcast versions of the show, use 'is', but when referring to the primary radio broadcast, use 'was'", but obviously you know something that I don't. I looked in the MOS and can't find anything that clearly defines radio as a permanent 'is' subject. Can you help me find the line so that I can reference it in future and maybe use it to update articles such as the ones I referenced above? Thanks a lot :) EmotionlessProsecutor (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I believe the relevant line is By default, write articles in the present tense, including ... works that have been discontinued.. I'm a little surprised you didn't see that A Prairie Home Companion uses "is" while you were looking things up. I do admit that the wording and meaning of PRESENT should probably be clarified, as LfH and APHC still "exist" they're not "active" (as well as Earth: Final Conflict, which is used as an example at PRESENT). Primefac (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

HAHA, yes, it's ironic that I missed the previous one. It's because I was just picking random articles from a category listing. If I had noticed it it probably would have been stop number 2 after making my comment. I think that makes sense to me, when you reference a film. I get stuck on the fact that radio broadcasts are live - similar to television, I suppose, but there is less cultural expectation that they be archived and available in future. Either way, thanks for the help!! EmotionlessProsecutor (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Bot run to fix time formatting

Primefac, how's it going? I have another bot run request for you. Can we run a bot to correct the formatting, per WP:MOSTIME, of the time field in the college football schedule tables? The bot would need to run through every transclusion of Template:CFB schedule entry and change any instance of "PM" in the time field to "p.m." and the same for "AM" to "a.m." See 2015 Colgate Raiders football team for an example. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, it would great to convert any instance of "pm" or "P.M." to p.m. and the same for "am" or "A.M." to a.m. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll run it up the chain, should be able to tack it on to Task 32. Primefac (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Forgot to mention but I did get approval for this. I'm only running the bot about once a quarter, so at some point this month I'll likely run through the various standings entry templates and get these updated. Primefac (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

And... I just realized you're referring to an entirely different set of pages. Will have to think about this one but it still should be doable. Primefac (talk) 03:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done, and the task (like 22) will be run quarterly just to catch new entries. Primefac (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You, YOU!!!!!

Why did you delete my template while I was contesting? I was contesting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CephalaspisLyelli (talk • contribs) 16:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Mostly because it was nonsense. Primefac (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle

You have not commented in any way at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle, but you jumped in to protect user:Fram from criticism. Instead of allowing Fram and the other involved editors to comment on it, you demand this must be escalated immediately to ANI. Why? Fram's deletion request is frivolous and his behaviour disruptive, but it is (in my view) not an incident that needs admin intervention to resolve (at least not until the starts dozens of AfDs for the articles he insists must be deleted against the opinions and arguments of all other editors involved in the current AfD). I will not revert you again (3r vs. an admin is a battle no one can win). noclador (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You have me mistaken. I saw the removal of the AFDs, left you a note, and decided to watch the AFD to see how it played out. Your comment was not appropriate for the AFD. I agree with you that going to ANI just over this is overkill, and I probably shouldn't have implied as such in my edit summary, but that doesn't mean that an off-topic discussion should be happening on a deletion discussion. I have and will continue to have no opinions on the AFD itself (and think Fram is more than capable of defending themselves without my intervention); I'm just watching it out of curiosity. Primefac (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the considerate and helpful response. noclador (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

History merge declined

Hello. I see you have declined my history merge of List of Bible translators. Does it mean I can freely change the redirect into something else, i.e. Category:Bible translators? Veverve (talk) 12:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You would not be able to redirect it to a category, because that would fail WP:R2. Primefac (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Vanessa Rubio

I was heading down a Cobra Kai rabbithole and noted that the parent article didn't have an active link for the actress Vanessa Rubio. Google however gave me cached content that showed Wikipedia had an article some 9 days ago that's now deleted (by you). Sockpuppetry notwithstanding, the article that was deleted appeared to be cited and would've added value to the content I was reading about Cobra Kai. You may want to consider restoring the article? Cheers. BlakJakNZ (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not in the habit of restoring contributions by sockpuppets. If you feel there is an article worth writing, you are more than welcome to do so. Primefac (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Primefac, I have sent you thanks for protecting the slab city page. It was really getting out of hand and I feel I was being passive aggressive about it, but nobody else was doing anything, so I thank you for taking control of the situation. I hope I am not bothering you with all of the thanks that I sent, it was not meant to be overwhelming. It's just that, as a neuroatypical person, these situations can be very difficult for me, and I thank you for understanding. Please feel free to intervene if I ever go overboard again. Regards, Cynthia-Coriníon (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not always easy, but remember that if you start a discussion you're more likely to have the higher ground! I've definitely been in a spot where it doesn't seem like "incorrect information" should be left on a page; it takes guts to leave it while you start a discussion and show you're "willing to deal" as they say. Primefac (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Apologies

Hello, Primefac. I'm sorry for reverting your edit on Carpentersville Middle School. I was, believe it or not, trying to click "Thank" when my computer finished loading the RedWarn buttons, causing them to appear right where the "Thank" button had once been, causing me to inadvertently click revert. I tried to undo it but you got there first. I had to apologize so it didn't seem like I was reverting back to my old ways. Please forgive me! Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Given the edit summary, I figured as much. Primefac (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

AFC and Korean articles

I'm trying to post this

• I lost all respect for the AFC process when G13 came in. That happened because AFC was entirely unable to cope with its backlog. By my estimation, around 10% of the articles deleted in that enormous first tranch of deletions were salvageable. That amounts to tens of thousands of good pages deleted. My estimate is not a guess. It is based on the percentage of articles I personally removed the G13 and put them in mainspace. As I recall, there were hundreds of thousands of pages put up for G13 deletion in a short space of time and very few editors trying to save them. So of course, the vast majority were deleted without a proper review. As far as I know, none of the pages I saved has ever been deleted, or even challenged. Nothing much seems to have changed in the intervening years except the deletion rate has become gentler.

The fundamental problem is the scope creep of the reviewing process. The criterion should be "will it survive an AFD", but instead submissions are judged by many reviewers essentially against GA criteria. AFC should not be an obstacle and submissions should not be required to be perfect. Many new participants are only likely to submit an article once, not keep coming back to service reviewer comments.

In my view, we are better off without AFC. It does more harm than good and is against the founding principles of Wikipedia (anyone can edit and their work is immediately visible – that's what wiki-wiki means). So either abolish it entirely, or reserve it just for editors with a COI. SpinningSpark 13:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

but every page I've tried to post it on has been edit conflicted by you closing the discussion (which is why I have temporarily parked it here). Would you please point me to the discussion that you have actually left open? It would have helped if you had left a pointer in the closing comments. SpinningSpark 13:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I thought having the link in the OP was sufficient. Original discussion is here, and I've added it to my closes. Primefac (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up, I've added your comment to the thread. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Special:Diff/980312887

You reverted just before I would have; it was a misclick on a watchlist taking forever to unload all its parts. Thanks, — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 20:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be happening a lot these days; I figured it was probably something like that. Primefac (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Cheryl Harris

Hi. Yes, I was unsure about that as well, but could not ascertain when the blog was written. How did you find out?Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

There wasn't anything on the page itself, but I noticed the URL contained /2020/09/22/, figured that couldn't be anything other than the published date. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Connected contributor (paid)

Template:Connected contributor (paid) has been nominated for merging with Template:Paid article. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Really sorry

I am really sorry for that, my thumb just clicked rollback when I was checking my wachlist, didn’t notice I had reverted your edits. Sorry :( Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 17:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

No worries, you're at least the third person with that issue lately. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

This is really ironic but I add my apologies. I hate mobile. Believe it or not, actually not intentional. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Jean-Loup Amselle

A quick apology, I didn't notice the "checking" text there (in fact I've never knowingly seen it before). Didn't mean to anticipate or pre-empt any conclusion you might have come to – which I hope in the event was the same as mine? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not a super-obvious notice/subbox to let others know it's being checked (and it's not the first time I've been pre-empted by another admin). However, this is the first time someone's agreed with me and I didn't have to undelete! So yes, I thought that it was likely reverse copy, but I wanted to confirm with the AFC reviewer as a final check. No worries with taking it over, though! Primefac (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

So, I suppose I should have set that "checking" parameter at Saed Haddad, which I was looking at when I got a phone call. As far as I can see, revisions before this addition are OK; whether or not it should be be restored, given the problems in the two remaining sentences, I happily leave up to you. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hah! I would argue that the pre-IP edits were G11-worthy, but I won't argue a restoration, rollback, and revdel. Primefac (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)