User talk:Plastikspork/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Template:Avant-garde

There are actually 2 separate articles: Minimalism and Minimalism (visual arts) and both articles were already included in the template because they are different articles, please read the list of general articles on the bottom of the template. Please revert your last edit - thank you...Modernist (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that. The one in the visual arts section is for visual arts. The one in the general section is for the general article. It's clear that the one in the visual arts section is for visual arts and the one in the general section is for the general article. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that your edit actually is ok, thank you...Modernist (talk) 03:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Infobox VFL season

I missed the reply to the TfD for {{Infobox VFL season}}; would you mind reopening and relisting it for further discussion, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:orders of magnitude (length)

A template that you decided should be deleted is still there, and just as pointless as ever. Unfortunately, it is now cluttering up a lot of articles. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If you check the edit history, this is a different template. I moved Template:orders of magnitude (length) wide to Template:orders of magnitude (length) after deleting Template:orders of magnitude (length), so it's a different template. Feel free to nominate it for deletion if you don't like either of them. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Confusing! RockMagnetist (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sporkbot bug report

This is a bit old, but while cleaning up Steven Stayner, I found that, in this edit last October, SporkBot deleted the beginning of a template but left the template's parameters hanging adrift. You may have already addressed this, but just in case you haven't I wanted to make you aware of it. I'm assuming the related bot code is still around; if this was a one-off for this particular template cleanup only, NBD. TJRC (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Add: it appears that it's happened more than once: [1], [2], [3]. A couple of these had already been cleaned up by someone else; I got the other just now. I don't know if others remain; this was just from a random sampling of articles edited by the bot in this timeframe. TJRC (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I checked the edit history of the bot from that particular task, it it looks like you found all of them (a total of four: Sheffield incest case, Fritzl case, Steven Stayner, and The Magdalene Sisters). The code has morphed so much since then, that it probably isn't an issue anymore, but I will make sure to run it in semi-supervised mode (reviewing all the edits) in the immediate future. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thanks for the comprehensive check. TJRC (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Bot changing archived pages

I've reverted this, as it's on an archived talk page. Further: should it be changing other contributor's signed comments at all? --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you reverted this edit twice, by two different bots. At the time, the template was in the process of being deleted, so it was substituted. Substituting the template keeps the appearance of your comment by replacing the deleted template with one that isn't deleted. You are the first editor to complain about this in the three or so years I have been running the bot. Substituting deleted templates is one of the tasks that the bot is approved to perform. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Italy

Hi Plastik. A request. In the commons we would seem to have a full and consistent set of commune maps of Italy in here. I was wondering if you could update Template:Infobox Italian comune to feature the maps by an automatic programming thing which adds the name of the commune in the image name to feature it in the infobox in a shrunk down way, rather like with the German local locator maps?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the pattern determining the map name from the place name? Perhaps you could propose something more concrete on the talk page? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to events: bot, template, and Gadget makers wanted

I thought you might want to know about some upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, extending functionality with JavaScript, the future of ResourceLoader and Gadgets, the new Lua templating system, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the the Berlin hackathon in June, the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC, and our other events.

You can register now for the Berlin event and if you need financial help or visa help, just mention that in the registration form.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 13:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox HM prison

{{Infobox HM prison}}, whose TfD you closed as delete, is still showing {{Tfd}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it here. Frietjes (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for fixing (and orphaning it). Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:College coach infobox listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:College coach infobox. Since you had some involvement with the Template:College coach infobox redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Magioladitis (talk) 07:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Plastikspork. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

why???

Yo dude/chicka why did you get rid of this page?!?!?! :3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.212.148 (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Which page? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox record label - image parameters

Could I trouble you to look at Template talk:Infobox record label#Image parameters, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like this has been resolved. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Css Image Crop template still displaying warning text on live pages

Hi Plastikspork

Regarding the templates for discussion final result of KEEP for the template Css Image Crop (see deletion discussion here):

Although this Css Image Crop template is going be kept now, the pages that use this template are still displaying the (rather ugly) warning text of "The template below (Css Image Crop) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus" in each image.

View the images in the lower half of this live article to see what I mean.

This warning text needs to be removed from the Css Image Crop template now, by somebody who knows how to remove it.

I don't know how to do this myself. Drgao (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

it is probably a problem with your cache or the wikipedia cache, since it was removed here. try opening the article, making no changes, then clicking on "save" and see if it goes away for you. Frietjes (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was probably it. Thank you for sorting it out! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Capitalization

Hi there. You recently deleted that template, but there is a related category, Category:Pages with several capitalization mistakes, that was included in its discussion. The category is only populated by articles tagged with that template, and will now remain empty. I wasn't sure if there was a plan to have the category populated by using the for=capitalization parameter for the copy edit tag though. Thanks for your help. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the reminder, I deleted about a dozen today, and I am now in the cleanup phase. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, cool, thanks for the update. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Mountain infoboxes

Is this request something you might be able to help with, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Problems with an editor

could you please look at the Eurovision templates and for example, this revert? all I did was correct the parameter order, replace the small tags with css, and remove the spurious newlines. now, this editor is basically threatening to have me blocked. Frietjes (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

They're a strange lot over at WP:ESC. I once made a constructive comment to some discussion (not at WT:ESC but a talk page within their remit) to which I added a lighthearted aside. My entire post was reverted as "trolling". When I asked at the reverting editor's user talk: for an explaination, several others jumped in with a "stay off our turf" attitude. My satisfaction here is that the very last one to comment - some 48 hours after my own last post - urged me to read WP:LASTWORD. I probably only went there in the first place because somebody had asked for template help. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to know that I never threatened Frietjes (talk · contribs) with blocks. I merely advised the user that I was aware of his recent block for en-mass editing across templates unrelated to WP:ESC; and that he should be cautious as other editors who where previously involved with that sanction, may see this current behaviour as a continuation of template disruption. Is it a crime now to offer precaution advice to fellow editors? In regards to the templates, a lengthy debate at WT:ESC took place over several weeks regarding the structure of templates used on the project, and we looked into ways to simplify them. A new format design was agreed upon, and a sought permission from a senior member of the project if I would be allowed to assist in the rollout exercise. When Frietjes started to make alterations, I quickly restored things back, and politely asked the user for an explanation, along with inviting them to engage in the debate at [{WT:ESC]] putting forward their ideas if necessary. The user refused to accept the invite, and just went ahead re-reverting, which correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure such behaviour is a no-no in the eyes of Wikipedia. Engaging in discussion is the ideal method, to prevent edit warring. I have mentioned the recent changes that Frietjes made to CT Cooper (talk · contribs) and even he agreed that the user should have engaged in discussion before making mass-edits on something that had been overwhelmingly agreed on via consensus at the project talk page. Wesley☀Mouse 20:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

After looking through the edit history, it looks like there was some misunderstanding in what Frietjes was doing. I will add some comments on your talk page, since there are some related comments by WOSlinker there. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Projects do not have "senior members", and no-one has the right to grant, or deny, permission for any editing on Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

In response to Andy Mabbett: I know projects don't have "senior members" and that "no-one has the right to grant, or deny, permission for any editing on Wikipedia". I referred to CT Cooper (talk · contribs) as "senior member" because he has been a part of the project a lot longer than I have; which in retrospect, makes him more senior than I in terms of the project - plus the fact he is also an administrator, to who I hold much respect for. And as for seeking permission; the templates saga was one that had gone on for many, many weeks. After a conclusion had been reached, I knew that creating well over 150 templates would be a lengthy task, and was offering my assistance so that the task could be completed sooner. I am the kind of person who would rather ask first, before jumping in - as that is considered polite and civil. Anyhow, the whole things has been resolved now. So I bid you good day, and happy editing. Thank you to WOSlinker, and Plastikspork for the assistance along the way, it has been very much appreciated. Wesley☀Mouse 21:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool

Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Non-administrator observation

Hiya Plastikspork,

I don't have any problems with the closure of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 9#Template:Non-administrator observation as "no consensus", but I'd be interested in hearing more about your reasons for that closure. I'm considering nominating it again, mostly because it's been nominated twice now and received a "no consensus" close both times, with the rationals provided during both previous MFD's closely mirroring one another. So, a more detailed analysis behind your closure yesterday may be helpful in providing some more direction. Thanks!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

ps: see Template talk:Non-administrator observation#What to do with this template as well.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I felt as though there were two basic arguments (1) comments from administrators carry no more weight than non-administrators and (2) there are some places on WP where only administrators can carry out certain actions, and it may be helpful for someone to mark his/her own comment a "non-administrator observation". I felt as though both of these points were valid, and well argued. One of the key points central to the second argument was that the marking of a comment is voluntary and self-marked. Marking another editors comment could be construed as belittling. If you want me to add these comments to my closing comments, I can certainly do so. You should certainly feel free to renominate it if you want, since there was no consensus. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Eurovision template fixes

Hi Plastikspork, Just a quick note to let you know all the templates have been finished, and the rollout exercise completed. You did mention that you would run a bot to iron out any minor technical error within them. Please click on this link to see a full list of the new templates that have been created. Regards - Wesley☀Mouse 00:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Great. I will try to run the bot this weekend. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Sar

Ouch! I followed a link to the deletion discussion on the Sar template. Saw that there was a clear consensus to delete, and noticed the button that said "Close - delete", so pressed it, thinking that would automatically close the discussion as a delete, and also delete the template. There then followed a series of stumbles as I realised what I had done was wrong, and I have been trying to sort it out, becoming embarrassingly aware as I have done so that I have not been following procedure and that I am in out of my depth. I went round removing the template from pages without realising the impact of that. I have now undeleted the template and listed it on the holding cell. I will also go round replacing the template on the pages I removed it. Is there anything else I need to do, or can you experts now take over and sort it out? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it has now been orphaned by a few different editors. I checked your edits, and subsequent fixes, and it looks like you didn't cause any major problems. Thanks for letting me know! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox classical composer

You deleted this template following a discussion by two participants.

This template was created as the result of extensive discussion by the Classical Music project, which you can review here. The editor nominating the template for deletion has consistently opposed the consensus achieved during that discussion, and made this nomination without informing anyone on the project. Naturally, everyone on the project - including those who are not in complete agreement with the consensus (including myself) - is very upset with this act of subterfuge. You can read the discussion on the matter here.

I am asking you to reinstate the template, and perhaps send a reprimand to the nominator for this underhanded method of dealing with a sensitive issue. I make this request prior to submitting a request for deletion review.

Thank you, --Ravpapa (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing the debate, it looks like the main issue was that it wasn't being used. I actually moved it to "Wikipedia:Infobox composer/draft" to allow for further discussion, and to preserve the page history. It was subsequently deleted there by another admin. I will restore it to User:Ravpapa/Infobox composer. I will leave it up to you to decide what to do with it after that. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you -- you edit conflicted with me -- I was trying to second Ravpapa's request. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox locomotive

Template:Infobox locomotive, acceleration and deceleration, that's exactly what I wanted. Thanks. Peter Horn User talk 04:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Great. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Eurovision

as per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 11, I believe the following can be deleted as well: Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1956, Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1957, Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1958, Category:Eurovision Song Contest by year templates. 64.134.157.179 (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The three templates yes, not sure how I missed those on my original submission. But the category no. That category is to be re-used, once recategorizing discussions have taken place on the project. Wesley☀Mouse 18:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. The category will most likely be speedily deleted since it's empty. Categories are trivial to recreate, so that won't be a problem. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

your deletion of utility templates {{italic}} and {{bold}}

was arbitrary. there was no discussion. a few people proclaimed their opinions/likes without bothering to provide a rationale. others provided reasons that are comical (fewer characters etc.). still others relied on incorrect assumptions (that templates were redundant when in actual fact, and as described, they were not). i asked several people to clarify their declarations and other statements, and they didn't. this hardly qualifies as consensus or discussion. these are templates that may potentially be used by any editor on any page, they require a much higher standard for deletion. please restore the templates while the merits of the nomination for deletion are properly considered. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

to be precise, i understand you marked the related tfd entries as "delete," then someone else actually deleted the templates. at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, some bot has devoured several nomination dates; all nominations between+including april 10 and april 13 are missing. the relevant nom date was april 13. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed the discussion and did not see any strong arguments for keeping the template. If you disagree with the decision you can list it at WP:DRV. If you decide to list it at DRV, then please let me know. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

did you see any strong arguments for deleting them? this is the point, the reason given for the deletion was "delete following discussion." i dispute there was any real discussion at all. actually that seems to be the norm with the majority of nominations – there's action taken after minimal discussion, when it comes to delete decisions. is there a bias towards deletions? 65.88.88.126 (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

i also noticed you deleted two other templates, Template:Section and Template:Comment. the tfds were not tagged per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, and the nominations and related "discussions" were not properly publicized. any comments? 65.88.88.126 (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed the discussions yet again, and I see no strong argument for keeping them. The steps for nominating a template for deletion are to (1) tag the template with the {{tfd}} tag, and (2) inform the original author. I see no reason to believe this protocol was not followed. As for the actual arguments for deletion, (1) {{italic}} is generally redundant to '' ... ''. The name of the template doesn't indicate that it creates padding, and most all of the transclusions were not using this feature, as far as I can tell. We have templates like {{spaced ndash}}, but the name is more descriptive. (2) {{bold}} is generally redundant to ''' ... '''. (3) {{comment}} is generally redundant to the more commonly used <!-- ... -->. (4) {{section}} is generally redundant to {{visible anchor}} and {{anchor}}. Again, if you would like to take this to WP:DRV, please feel free, but make sure you let me know if you do. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

predictable, and entirely flawed. good luck in your endeavors. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Rail vehicle templates

Plastikspork,
Please see my posts at Template talk:Infobox tram#Additional parameters or fields, Template talk:Infobox train#Truck or bogie centers as well as Template talk:Infobox locomotive#Truck or bogie centers. Peter Horn User talk 19:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I will see if I can find some time to have a look, but I can't promise anything. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox rally

Hi, Plastikspork. I saw that a year ago you revamped Template:Infobox rally. In the length parameters, it tells the editor to enter the length in kilometres, without the "km" suffix, which the template adds automatically. I was wondering if you could make a minor change and remove the auto-"km" part so that editors can use {{convert}} to display kms and miles. And also change the entry name from "stagekm" to "stagelength" or something. I'd do it, but I have no idea how infoboxes work and I don't want to screw up a hundred or so pages because I made one lousy edit. After you've done it I'll go round and fix all the pages it appears on. Thanks, Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, if you could change "teams" to "crews" or "entrants" because a team (like Citroen World Rally Team or BP-Ford WRT) is different from a crew. Some crews enter the rally privately without the backing of a team. Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would say that it would be a bad idea to change the way that an existing parameter expects its data to be supplied. Far better would be to add code so that the infobox does a conversion to miles, using the existing data format. As a suggestion, the infobox presently has two places with the following code:

{{{stagekm}}} km

If these were both amended as follows:

{{convert|{{{stagekm}}}|km|mi|abbr=on}}

the conversion would be done automatically for all articles without the need to change any of them. Similarly, the one instance of {{{overallkm}}} km can become {{convert|{{{overallkm}}}|km|mi|abbr=on}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. If the units are in the name of the parameter, it should be a raw number. If we want unit conversion, then add it to the template. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Request

Hi I was wondering if you could code something to copy the lists of municipalities and communes into the articles by Provinces of Morocco from Italian wikipedia like this. Basically its the same format, same source, but just copying the lists?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I am going to have much time in the near future, but you never know, things might change. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox UK ward

What are your thoughts on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 23#Template:Infobox UK ward? Are there technical issues preventing a merge? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I will see if I can find some time later this week, but I don't think I am going to do much in the near future. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Section

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 17#Template:Section

I would like you to revert your deletion of Template:Section it is more efficient than anchor as it does not have the if statement. In some articles it is used dozens of times so there will be an overhead when using it which is unnecessary. Also unless one is familiar with HTML section is more intuitive than anchor. -- PBS (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

what you state above is obvious to anyone who bothered to devote 2 minutes at the template:section's doc. this was pointed out in the discussion too, and was basically ignored. there was no other argument for deletion, apart from the incorrect, "redundant template." notice also that the tfd was not tagged, and (outside the discussion page), it remained unpublicized throughout.

based on the hasty and unexamined decision it seems to me that User:Plastikspork spent minimal time on this. contrast this with the time to be likely spent wading through bureaucratic procedure such as WP:DRV in order to do the, imo, obvious – 1. ask that the deletion argument be supported (the onus is on those advocating deletion) and 2. properly review the merits of the nomination and deletion discussion (assuming there is one). it also seems that renominating tfds that were designated "keep" or "no consensus" is much easier than having a deleted tfd relisted.

unfortunately, by his admission, User:Plastikspork is an absentee administrator; this compounds both the administrative sloppiness and the bureaucratic delay. as i pointed in another section, imo all this brings up the question of bias towards deletion. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I re-read the discussion and the main arguments for keeping it are (1) it's more efficient and (2) it has a second parameter for the section title. The main argument for deleting it is (1) redundant to more fully featured templates like {{anchor}} and {{visible anchor}}. We have some level of communal consensus that we don't worry about performance unless there is strong reason to believe this is not the case. The idea that the debate "remained publicized throughout" is simply false. It had a {{tfd}} tag on it for the entire time the discussion was open. If you feel it was a "biased deletion", then list it at WP:DRV. If there really are performance issues, and you want to create a less expensive template for the subpages of List of Latin phrases, then go right ahead. It may be nominated for deletion, but you would surely be able to defend its deletion with hard evidence showing the performance problems. We have many special purpose templates for creating anchors for glossary pages, and other special articles. I just don't see any evidence that there isn't widespread consensus for using {{anchor}} in most cases. If you do take it to WP:DRV, please let me know. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

yup. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you please move Template:Kip Moore to my user space?

Can you please move Template:Kip Moore to my user space? Thanks!--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, no problem! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Saint Joseph's men's basketball team

Hey I'm working on a page for the 2003-2004 Saint Joseph's men's basketball team and I'm wondering if you'd be willing to help me add to the page (a summary of a big game etc). If you're interested, the link is 2003–04 Saint Joseph's Hawks men's basketball team. Thanks a lot! 5hane2012 (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)5hane20125hane2012 (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think I am going to have any time to help in the near future. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

housekeeping

could you delete the following list of redirects? the context for this request can be found at User:GeorgeMoney/TEMP/Rpotd.

list

• Template:RPOTD/August 20, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/August 21, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/August 22, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/December 29, 2006
• Template:RPOTD/February 7, 2008
• Template:RPOTD/January 2, 2008
• Template:RPOTD/January 6, 2008
• Template:RPOTD/January 7, 2008
• Template:RPOTD/January 8, 2008
• Template:RPOTD/January 9, 2008
• Template:RPOTD/June 12, 2008
• Template:RPOTD/March 1, 2008
• Template:RPOTD/March 17, 2008
• Template:RPOTD/March 18, 2008
• Template:RPOTD/March 19, 2008
• Template:RPOTD/March 25, 2008
• Template:RPOTD/May 11, 2008
• Template:RPOTD/November 1, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/November 10, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/November 11, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/November 12, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/November 13, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/November 14, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/November 15, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/November 16, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/November 17, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/November 18, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/November 19, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/November 2, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/November 20, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/November 21, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/November 22, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/November 23, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/November 24, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/November 25, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/November 26, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/November 27, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/November 28, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/November 29, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/November 3, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/November 30, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/November 4, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/November 5, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/November 6, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/November 7, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/November 8, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/November 9, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 1, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 10, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 11, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 12, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 13, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 14, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 15, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 16, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 17, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 18, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 19, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 2, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 20, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 21, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 22, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 23, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 24, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 25, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 26, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 27, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 28, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 29, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 3, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 30, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 31, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 4, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 5, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 6, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 7, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 8, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/October 9, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/September 1, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/September 10, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/September 11, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/September 12, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/September 13, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/September 14, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/September 15, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/September 2, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/September 30, 2007
• Template:RPOTD/September 7, 2007

thank you. Frietjes (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for moving them! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Rogue alt text at Template:Location map

Hi PS, I've come across an accessibility problem at Template:Location map and documented it as best I can at Template talk:Location map #Suppressing alt text for the marker. I just wanted to ask if you've come across the problem before, before I spend ages sand-boxing stuff into my userspace so I can try to solve it. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like this has been resolved. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Coordinate

Hi, Plastikspork! There seems to be a problem with {{Coordinate}} at List of karst springs? Can you look at it and fix it? Thanks a lot. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The template's doc page states: "To add coordinates in an article, please use {{coord}} instead." The {{coordinate}} template isn't intended for permanent use. It displays the {{coord}} syntax that should be used instead, so that you can copy-and-paste that into the article at the point where {{coordinate}} presently lies. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, the template is helping you with the translation, but it needs your help. We could probably make these "substitutable". Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This would be great, because these templates are complex enough to be used on their own, and even more difficult to use when transferred from another wiki. Thanks for fixing the syntax in the list. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Coupling

Plastikspork,
Please see Template talk:Infobox locomotive#Coupling. Peter Horn User talk 22:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not notice the typo. Peter Horn User talk 22:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like this has been resolved. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

A bug

Plastikspork,
Please look at Template talk:Convert#Bushels. Neither "abbr=off" nor "adj=on" work. In fact the word "bushel" should appear at the very onset. It now appears as if "abbr=on" is accidentally in place. Peter Horn User talk 19:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

TfD

Hi, I see you closed Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 3#Template:AcropolisCup as "delete", but you didn't delete the template? Any reason for this, or did you just forget? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I probably forgot. It looks like another admin took care of it. Thanks for checking! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Australian Hut

I've only just discovered, purely by accident, the TfD for {{Infobox Australian Hut}}. Unfortunately, like so many Australian templates that are nominated, it was nominated without bothering to even attempt to contact WP:AUSTRALIA. Not surprisingly, the same old names were involved (I'm not talking about you) and since the TfD they've done nothing as a result of the outcomes. I'm sorry for the rant but it's far too common. A simple post at WP:AWNB is surely not that difficult but some editors apparently see no need to collaborate with others. Anyway..... you closed with "The result of the discussion was merge or replace with {{Infobox mountain hut}} where feasible" but this really isn't a practical outcome. The original nomination was that the template is redundant to {{Infobox building}}, which it isn't, and this was opposed. Chris Cunningham's suggestion seemed to be along the lines of deleting the template completely, which was unhelpful. "It's hard to argue that any of the current transclusions would be worse off without an infobox" can really be applied to any article and the claim that "the buildings themselves seem not to be of particular note" is not correct. While I can't really attest to the notability of the other huts, Mawson's Huts are of particular note, not only to Australia, but to Antarctic exploration, and for this reason they are included on multiple heritage lists. However, Mawson's huts are at sea level and therefore {{Infobox mountain hut}} shouldn't be used in that article. The suggestion to use {{Infobox mountain hut}} appears to have been made without any real examination of the template. It is clearly targeted at mountain huts, specifically those in the high mountains in Europe. The template doesn't appear to be maintained; prior to "de-Germanification" by Thumperwad in March 2012, it was last edited in April 2011 after being created only in December 2010. The documentation is poor and needs a lot of work to make it understandable to those who aren't familiar with Europe. The template is only actually transcluded to a single article, Simony Hut, with the other 22 articles using {{Infobox Schutzhütte}}, which is a German language template. Both {{Infobox mountain hut}} and {{Infobox Schutzhütte}} rely on even more templates, such as {{AT-4}}, making them a bit of a mess. These issues aside, we still have the situation with Mawson's Huts not being a mountain hut. I have tried to use {{Infobox mountain hut}} but, at the moment it's not feasible. See testcases. There has been no attempt to modify Infobox mountain hut since the TfD and, until there is, it is not feasible to use it for any of the articles that currently use Infobox Australian Hut. It's not at all appropriate to use Infobox mountain hut for Mawson's Huts so Australian Hut has to remain alive for that article. In any case, there seems no justification in replacing one low-use template that is targeted at a specific geopolitical area with another low-use template targeted at a completely different area, especially when the second is no better than the first. Perhaps both templates should be merged to form a generic {{Infobox hut}}, but there doesn't seem any call for this. For these reason, I'm hoping you'll overturn your closure. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Mountain hut won't work for all of them, which is why I said "where appropriate". My hope was that we could make this a more general template, and say call it {{Infobox hut}} or something, as you suggested. Maybe merge the mountain hut template with it at that location. Do you think that would be feasible? I know the template current says "being deleted" on it, but I should probably say "being merged", since that was the general consensus. I agree that there was no consensus to merge it with "building", but I thought there was a general consensus to merge it with other "hut templates". Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the only hut templates are {{Infobox Australian Hut}} and {{Infobox mountain hut}}, and it would certainly be desirable to merge them into {{Infobox hut}}. Articles using {{Infobox Schutzhütte}} need to be converted to use English and that template then dumped. With my limited experience in building templates, I'm not sure if merging the existing templates is actually feasible, but a new template using {{Infobox}} as its core is obviously possible. In doing so we can get rid of all the little flag templates used by {{Infobox mountain hut}}. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will take a closer look over the next couple days. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As a learning exercise, I've already started by rebuilding {{Infobox Australian Hut}}, using {{Infobox building}} for guidance. I've stolen the location map data from {{Infobox Australian place}} and tested the result with several articles. The various pages I've created in my userspace are listed at User:AussieLegend/Projects#Infobox hut. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox school

Hi. Can you add the pushpin map function?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I could. Could you start a thread on the talk page, since that is a very heavily used template? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Did and nobody cares so go ahead.. Can you fix Template:The Leading Hotels of the World in Europe, for some reason its stretching.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

MOSNUM script

Hi, I'm currently working with another user who has helped me radically redesign the MOSNUM script. He and I are both experimenting with different versions of the script; I also know that Dl2000 (talk · contribs) also uses a variant of the script, which is also evolving separately. Now my friend has suggested that the script be somehow centralised, made accessible to and editable by any userEdited: perhaps more than one user. Is this technically feasible with Mediawiki software in en.wp, or in the Metawiki environment, and if so, how would one go about it, and what would be the pitfalls? Thanks in advance. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Dl200 has already joined in the discussion on my talk page. See you there? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

I was unaware that one of my userboxes had moved but your bot automatically corrected it. Thanks for that! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 08:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Bot activity

Why is SporkBot bypassing redirects, as in this edit? I don't see these redirects listed at WP:TFD/H. Anomie⚔ 14:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

That was a lapse in judgement. I was cleaning up some that were userfied that were listed in Wikipedia:Database reports/Transclusions of deleted templates, and at the same time I was deleting some of the unused ones in Wikipedia:Database reports/User template redirects. I ended up correcting some redirects that clearly didn't need to be corrected. Sorry about that, and I will be more careful in the future. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I need help with this user's contributions

I need your help reverted User:Paniolia's contributions. This user moved the talkpage of Stefan Szkafarowsky to be the user's talkpage. I've attempted moving that page (containing welcome message and notices) to be User talk:Paniolia, not Talk:Stefan Szkafarowsky. To make matters worse, it seems this user also started Wikipedia talk:Stefan Szkafarowsky as a link to their "user talkpage". I would appreciate your help with this. Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Unfortunately WP:CSD#R2 only applies to redirects from article space. This user has created four redirects, all as the result of two separate moves of the same page: User:Paniolia, User talk:Paniolia, Wikipedia:Stefan Szkafarowsky, Wikipedia talk:Stefan Szkafarowsky (move log). --Redrose64 (talk) 11:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC) amended --Redrose64 (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've moved the talk page back to its proper place at User talk:Paniolia and zapped the trail of redirects (see here) so that any future edits concerning the article Stefan Szkafarowsky won't affect the user talk page. That leaves User:Paniolia and Wikipedia:Stefan Szkafarowsky possibly needing clean-up. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks for sorting it out. I think we can delete the WP space -> article space redirect as well. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Membership

I was not notified of this deletion. I am rather shocked that months of work was deleted over such minor comments by few IPs. Please restore these templates. I have already filed a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 May 25#Template:Membership -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why you didn't try Step 1? This almost certainly could have been resolved quickly. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought I was following procedure... :/ I don't deal with deletions undeletions normally. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, we can always drag the whole thing out for a week. Your point about the IP not following the "recommended procedure" since you were not notified carries quite a bit of weight with me, although doesn't with others since it is only a recommendation. Whenever I find that to be the case, my standard response is to relist the discussion, no matter how many other editors have voiced an opinion. I am also more than happy to have my bot do a regexp search and replace to help fix the templates if the final resolution is to userfy. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Users aren't required to be notified, I know this. I just strongly feel the deletion discussion was inadequate.

A regex would be difficult to construct since it is countless templates within templates among parser functions. If you can pull it off, be my guest but I think it is wasted energy. It also complicates my ability to improve. It is certainly not a standard practice to dump hundreds of templates on userspace just because 2-3 users wish it. I think they are being unreasonable and complicating my ability to develop this template further for no good reason. They have not expressed any reason why the pages cannot be in template namespace aside from a pollution remark.

Also I think the template can be used on infoboxes without the code development since it is one transclusion per page. This wasn't something I was thinking before the deletion discussion since I was too focused on large lists with multiple transclusions rather than a single transclusion. The main obstacle is I need assistance in gathering membership dates for individual countries. This is easy for 1 country but when you deal with ~200 it becomes a chore.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 00:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:NOT

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:NOT. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Captaincollect1970 (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Plastikspork. Would you add a closing rationale to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 19#Template:NOT to assist participants at DRV? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

China sub stubs

Hi, currently at ANI there are plans to nuke 10,000 articles on Chinese townships, basically everything ever created by User:Jaguar, including the SPanish municipalities I'm trying to source and save. I agree that 8000-10,000 articles would demand years of hard work to get them all up to a reasonable status but the average township article could look like Anxiang Township. If they are all deleted, chances are in might not be for years until anybody covers much of them. And the thing is, all the stubs link to the website which just needs the exact township linked and a bit of data extracted. I think it would be far more productive in the long term to organize something to add the Chinese and exact links and try to use something to extract raw data. Would it be possible to code something to copy the Chinese from the relative townships list e.g List of township-level divisions of Hebei and use that to find the exact township on the website given in the refs? Its just its very destructive what they're planning when they could surely be saved with some sort of coding.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Coding is always possible when there is an unambiguous task. The problem is that I have no idea what exactly is entailed here. I also don't read/write Chinese and have no experience with parsing Chinese pages. However, if you could be more specific, I might be able to do something. But, your best option may be to simply ask someone else with more experience with this sort of thing. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah they got deleted ...♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want any specific ones restored, I'm sure we could work something out. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, 8,000 articles were deleted from here. They could probably all be restored if the errors are removed and perhaps some content is added.. i believe the best thing would be to recreate with a bot or something.. There are some sites which consistently have population and area data and a list of the village committees.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Broken deletion summaries

Hi there, Plastikspork. Since you work plenty with templates, I was wondering if you could look into some odd deletion summary messages. For example, when I was going to delete Category:Wikipedia files needing editor assistance at upload as of 25 May 2012, the deletion summary ends up looking like this: %5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23G6%7CG6%5D%5D%3A+Housekeeping+and+routine+%28non-controversial%29+cleanup. This also occurs with prods (take Bernie Marsden (album), for example, I get Expired+%5B%5BWP%3APROD%7CPROD%5D%5D%2C+concern+was%3A+no+sources+to+be+found.+no+such+album.+duplicate+of+%5B%5BGoing+to+My+Hometown+%28album%29%5D%5D). Everything was fine just 24 hours ago, and I'm not sure what happened. Is this a problem with the coding of the templates, or is the issue go beyond that? — ξ^xplicit 00:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

That's very strange. I may be able to figure it out, but you should certainly ask other editors as well (e.g., VPT). I will let you know if I track anything down. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) MediaWiki:Sysop.js was recently moved to MediaWiki:Group-sysop.js (see MediaWiki talk:Group-sysop.js#Conversion to gadgets). The move left a #REDIRECT [[MediaWiki:Group-sysop.js]] behind, which I'm sure isn't valid JavaScript. This may have something to do with it. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like that was it and it's fixed now. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Maspeling

can we speedy delete Template:Maspeling per Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_17#Template:Maspecorg and other ma* discussions? Frietjes (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

AR portal

That was very kind of you, and just what I was looking for. Thank you! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Cinema templates

Hi Sporky. For the cinema template removal/replacing, could I suggest a couple of improvements to your bot:

1. If multiple templates exist (for example, a French and Algerian co-production), can the bot replace them in one go, instead of doing them a country at a time. In some cases, one article could be edited four times or more.
2. Adding a category for a country that isn't "hard coded" in the foot of the article. Can this be placed after the year of release, instead of before it, so the cats are in A-Z order?

Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I stopped the bot after I noticed the large number with multiple templates. I will work on recoding it in a bit. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox settlement Chile

Hi Plastikspork,

I suppose that both infoboxes will be merged first and then the new template will be deleted. I have done my work for WP and I expect that other people improve it and don't destroy it. In this spirit, I agree the decision.

I would like to help you by merging, but I am not a expert in WP templates. My only idea is to create 4 new variables: image_right, image_left1, image_left2 and image_left3. If image_right exists then the "old" images (that is the old layout) shouldn't be shown but only the new images (image_left1-3 and image_right) in a table as in Infobox settlement Chile. In this way, old data records without a "image_right" variable will be processed as always.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the plan is to not delete the template until such a feature is added. I was thinking we might, instead, add something like 'pushpin_map_right' or 'pushpin_map_narrow' and then have the template automatically put the pushpin map on the right side with a more narrow width. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

dashes.js

Hi Plastikspork,

GregU (talk · contribs) has not been active on this project for some months now. However, I and a few other editors are using his dashes script quite intensively for the last few months. That, together with the ever-increasing "creativity" of editors' formatting and template writing (and occasionally not abiding by MOS), means that a number of false positives showing up are increasing. The issues have been flagged on his talk page, but he's simply not around to respond. As Wikipedia's template guru, general tech expert and helpful dude, could you help investigating the script and making necessary coding changes thereto or to the offending template? Thanks. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It may be better to just fork the script if he isn't going to be available to make changes. It would also be nice to refactor it a bit to make it able to be used with other templates. Someone had asked me awhile back if this was possible. I could certainly fix specific bugs, but it would probably be better if I were not editing another user's userspace without expressed permission from that user. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Henry Scherren and the EB in general

Hi, I see you've removed a template which used to give very convenient access to the 1911 EB. It hasn't done much damage to the Henry Scherren page itself, but out of curiosity I followed the Wikisource link to the Henry Scherren Wikisource page, and it's all redlinks! This is pretty catastrophic as it must be repeated on thousands of other pages.

Is there a plan or mechanism for restoring or replacing all the lost accessibility to 1911 EB pages?

I suppose there must be some reason for the action that has been taken but given that it can't be copyright, I do wonder what it might be, and what we can do about it.

Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

hi, when I nominated this template for deletion all it did was create a link to a page here at WP. I cannot see the page history to see if it had done anything prior to the state that it was in when I nominated it. it would seem to me that the best thing to do now would be to see where it was removed and make sure there is a citation to the corresponding page at http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/. in this case, there is such a citation. there is a way to track external link to the www.1911encyclopedia.org site, so we can always check what links to that site, and add other links if there is a secondary source but the link to www.1911encyclopedia.org seems to work fine. Frietjes (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well thankyou, I wish you good luck with all that. Still not sure I understand the deletion, nor what caused what, but I do think it was better before so perhaps we could restore the template or replace its effects, whatever they were, in some way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

as I said, when I nominated it for deletion, all it did was create a link to an article here at WP. so typing {{EB1911 Link|Platypus}} produced exactly the same thing as [[Platypus]]. I nominated it because it was pointless in this form, requiring more typing than just typing the wikilink. I cannot see the template history, so I don't know if it ever did anything more. I checked and PS only removed it from two articles, in both cases there are links to the www.1911encyclopedia.org site, so there is still a link to the article in the 1911 EB. you can find all the links to the 1911encyclopedia.org site using this search. so if there is a need to link to another site at some point in time, we can always change it. Frietjes (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 25#Template:DNB lkpl. I've just checked the template history for {{EB1911 Link}}, and it contains just two entries: the creation of the template by Rich Farmbrough, and the addition of the TFD by Frietjes. In both cases the behaviour when transcluded was exactly the same: the wikicode {{EB1911 Link|Platypus}} was equivalent to simply entering [[Platypus]]. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for sorting it out. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

UFC Undisputed 3 Templates?

Why did you get rid of them? They worked well, and UFC Undisputed 2009 and 2010 have them... JonnyBonesJones (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

They were deleted as the result of this discussion. The general consensus is that we don't need templates with only a single use in a single article, since it makes it less clear how to edit the content. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you gunna get the other pages too? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like they have already been renominated and subsequently deleted. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Closed no consensus tfd

May I request you to please reopen the tfd [4] that was marked as no consensus, as in my opinion it should have been relisted to generate more consensus rather than closing. There were valuable comments from many users, It has been nominated again and now a user is claiming for POINT. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I did close this as no consensus, mostly due to the active editing that was happening continuously during the discussion. Unfortunately, that appears to be happening again, even with this second nomination. It's really hard to have a discussion about something which is constantly changing, since the comments earlier in the thread may not be related to the comments later in the thread. But, that's the way it goes. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Template

Hi Plastikpork, interwiki for this template Template:Navbox with collapsible groups--Nihan (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you figured it out, you just need to edit the doc page. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

AutoEd

Just curious - is the whitespace feature of autoed intended to remove white space in infobox parameters. I personally prefer that "=" to be lined up so you can quickly scan the parameters on the right to find the thing you want to fix. I've seen these removed recently by this tool and was wondering if that was intended or improper use of the tool. --Trödel 13:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The AutoEd project started from a codebase which tried to do as much as possible to reduce the number of characters in the wikitext (within reason). Obviously, this is not always the best idea from a readability standpoint. Several people have complained about the unalignment of infoboxes, and also about the removal of newlines after section headings. At some point, I would like to create a less aggressive whitespace module, to give people an option. When I was using it, I would cut the infobox out, then run AutoEd, then paste it back in. I would also check the diffs to make sure there wasn't anything else that made the diffs unreadable (like removal of newlines which cause the diffs not to line up). So, yes it is functioning as intended, but editors should realize that its not always a good idea to use all the features. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! --Trödel 14:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

template:Ausdaytimeschedule

Hi. I see you noticed my bit of AfD trophy collecting. How about pasting a copy of the navbox code right into that page? I'd done something cute with the “look”. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Terima kasih. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

tfd'ing of templates

Hi. About this [5]: Why not to include tfd part in noinclude (see here:[6])? And where is the "this template's entry" at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion? Anchored link doesn't work: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Film_Italy`a5b (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Discussion was actually at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 12#"Cinema of" templates but since all the 12 May discussions have closed, that subpage is no longer listed on the main WP:TFD page. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Saudibox

see tfd 198.102.153.2 (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

thank you for converting the articles. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Are there real advantage to these replacements?

Hi Plastikpork. An editor recently made these changes to some the tables I entered, everywhere replacing align="right" with style="text-align:right;". Are there real advantages doing this, sufficient to warrant the untidy complication of the tables? --Epipelagic (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The align attribute is deprecated as of HTML 4.01, so I can see make such a replacement to "upgrade" the HTML. However, we are not supposed to be concerned too much with HTML at WP, since the backend software should be able to translate the Wikitext into fully standards compliant HTML. So, it would make sense that the MediaWiki software should be able to automatically translate align=right into style="text-align:right" if it is important to do so. In the end, I think it is probably a debatable change to the article, but not one that I would care enough about to actually debate. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that :) --Epipelagic (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Need some help with stranded templates marked for TfD

Hi Plastikspork, I'm writing to you because you closed the mass opera composer navbox TfD. The list of 50 navboxes with 2 and 3 opera links was closed as "Keep". I now discover that the nominator had nominated another 15 composer navboxes on the same day (May 30) but forgot to list them in the deletion discussion. Consequently, they are still languishing with TfD templates on them and no linked discussion. All of them are 2 or 3 opera ones and would have been kept had they been listed properly. I'm happy to remove the TfD templates from them with an edit summary referring to the deletion discussion, but wanted to check if I could do that or if it needs an admin. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, remove the tfd tags from those as well. I will do so if someone else doesn't do it first. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I woke up this morning to find them all done. :) Voceditenore (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Cinema of ...

Hi Spork,
I just saw your Bot zapping one of those templates.
Should we let your bot do them all?
The side effect of those templates involved categorization.
If we are zapping a template ourselves, we need to confirm a specific categorization first, before deleting the template?
Varlaam (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You can certainly replace any of the {{Film XYZ}} templates that you see. The procedure is to (1) replace it with the name of the country in the infobox and (2) add the category if it isn't there already. I would say there are probably better uses of your time. However, if you are already editing one of the articles, then of course you should consider replacing the template in the same edit. This will save my bot the trouble of replacing the template. I imagine my bot will be completely finished within the next couple days. After that there will still be a few runs to catch any that were reverted (e.g., reverted in the process of reverting vandalism). Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If we're looking at a couple of days only, then we'll let the bot do its reliable and consistent job!

Thanks, Varlaam (talk) 03:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, a couple of days - good! My watchlist is creaking - time to switch off bot-edits... Lugnuts (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Whereisit

I didn't realize the template had been nominated for deletion before it was too late. I would have stated that this template is useful in new page patrol when dealing with articles about places, where the article doesn't state where the subject is located. I find the template {{context}} unhelpful in such circumstances, as it doesn't tell the creator what we mean by "lack of context", whereas the template {{whereisit}} pinpoints the problem. The problem is usually resolved in no time, which explains why there are so few long-term transclusions. The first draft of the article Devine High School was one where {{whereisit}} would have been a better choice than the generic {{context}}. Luckily, in this case, the article creator understood the problem.

I believe the deletion of this template should be reconsidered. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to hear from Chris to see if he has an additional input. One possible solution could be to add a "geo" parameter to {{context}}. I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter, but it would be good to hear from both sides. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't {{where}} adequate for this? You're really talking about a single data point here, and a big cleanup tag seems like overkill for that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

No. The {{where}} template is for inline use, when only one sentence in the article needs to be clarified. When the entire article is about a place and doesn't even specify whether that place is in the US or in Australia, then the entire article becomes unclear on the grounds of a single tidbit of information that's missing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

So just stick it at the end of the lead sentence. I assume that these articles are, by and large, very short? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Not all of them. You know the new users: most of them think Wikipedia is trying to compete with Facebook. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that {{where}} ought to suffice. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

tfd links

What does mean temporary? Where is the discussion? mabdul 10:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I imagine this has something to do with this problem, but I could be wrong. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was the problem. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Rank order

Re: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Rank_order — Three "deletes" and one "keep" is "no consensus"? Pristino (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You forgot to count Chris? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:LUL color

Should this discussion Template talk:LUL color#Requested move go to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion? You regularly deal with templates, and I don't completely know how that works. Is it really only "Templates for deletion"? Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Richard Hatch (Survivor contestant)

I left a message concerning Richard Hatch (Survivor contestant) on the BLPN board, and nobody even followed up on the discussion nor changed the unsourced section for several days, that's why I removed the section. BLPs need sources, not tags. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Kashmir separatist movement

Has been renominated.... for the third time here. Informing people who were part of prior discussions, as courtesy. Mar4d (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

St. Gregory Luxury Hotels & Suites

Where is da hotel marker from the map?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't use both latd/longd and {{coord}}, it just leads to problems when they don't match. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't, but the editor added coord. Can you ,make the header name of the club for infobox golf facility green too and also a green border around the box? Also, location isn't showing for some reason and I want the coordinates to show in the title and infobox for Aylesbury Vale Golf Club,.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The problem with this edit is that {{Infobox golf facility}} doesn't recognise |coordinates_display=. In fact, it doesn't construct a {{coord}} at all; the |latd=/|longd=/etc. parameters are used purely to create a pushpin map. BTW although the postal address is Leighton Buzzard, Beds, the golf course is actually in Bucks, so try |pushpin_map=United Kingdom Buckinghamshire. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I updated that template to use more advanced coordinates/pushpin map code taken from {{infobox building}} and {{infobox settlement}}. Frietjes (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice work! Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Templates you may have forgotten to delete

• Template:Cat year nav
• Template:Image class names

Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have orphaned these and marked them for deletion. Frietjes (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Closure of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 23#Oklahoma education navigational boxes

You missed one deletion at Template:Broken Arrow PS. I think I unintentionally forgot to put it in the nomination, which may be why you missed it in the deletion round. If you'd like a renom, let me know. --Izno (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

seems to me like it could be deleted per that discussion. I will tag it. Frietjes (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Subscription required using via

I created this and intended to populated it with this. It has been removed per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 7#Category:Pages containing subscription only links or citations, which I see as irrelevant . With {{HighBeam}} gone, there's no way to find these. I believe further discussion about the arbitrary guidance to call-out HighBeam is needful and that a mechanism needs to be available to track this. That little discussion is no consensus re this. Thoughts? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

(TPS) as you probably know, you can find all the links to highbeam using this external link search. I see no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to add a hidden category to this template, so long as you are clear that it is not a maintenance category that is intended to be cleared. if you are using it in conjunction with some discussion, then that seems like a valid reason to add the tracking category. just my opinion though. Frietjes (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeking to remove links to highbeam.com, I'm concerned about internally linking to HighBeam in large numbers of articles. It's simply a plug. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

How can I make this list sort?

Would you mind looking at the second list here, that is the collapsed list called "Mercury/omega-3 levels in commercial fish and shellfish". How can I make this list sort? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Splitting up the header row that spanned two columns helped. -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that! --Epipelagic (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Infoboxes

Hi. There is a try to revive WikiProject Infoboxes by doing some tasks. These include the use of standard namming, simplify wikicode, reduce the number of infoboxes used, etc. Can you help on that? You are invited to participate in Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes with ideas, suggestions and ofcourse your edits :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Turkish cuisine and Cuisine of Turkey

could you (or another admin) take the pre December 2011 history of Template:Turkish cuisine and merge it with Template:Cuisine of Turkey. you will see that in December 2011 the template was changed from a navbox to a sidebar, but there is concern with the layout in short articles. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Renaming

See my proposal to rename Category:Nippori-Toneri Liner to Category:Nippori-Toneri Line; also the main article. Hugo999 (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

IP serial editing on templates

Please see [7] This IP user is making a whole lot of format edits on templates without discussion. Looks to me like hundreds of template edits. Some have been reversed by another editor. I reversed the one they did to Template:Texas History, because I don't believe the format of it should have been revised. I think you know more about template issues than I do. But I don't think this should be happening. Please advise. Maile66 (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I'm listing this over at Village Pump, in case you're not active right now. Maile66 (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The plainlist stuff looked fine, but the adding of navbar's to infoboxes is a bit problematic. Normally, you expect an edit link to take you to the place to edit the content. In the case of infoboxes, the content is in the article, not in the infobox template. For sidebars, this is fine, but not for most infoboxes. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Danny Hilton

Would you mind comparing Danny Hilton (a page you deleted) with the newly created Danny London Hilton? It appears to be the exact same thing, created for the fourth time. 50.131.220.134 (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! 50.131.220.134 (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:HighBeam

Hi,

Please reconsider your closure at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 1#Template:HighBeam; I think the outcome was "keep". Note also the comment on my talk page, about the consequences of the merge. Also, would I be right in thinking that the merged template asks the tracking ability of the of the template discussed (I'm overseas, with limited connectivity so may be slow to respond). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

No one objected to merging the templates, but there were plenty of objections to keeping it, and plenty of objections to completely deleting it without merging it. By my reading of the discussion, merge was an acceptable solution for the majority. The added benefit is, of course, that one can now specify ProQuest links as well. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

fyi. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I've given the reason why Br'er Rabbit's stated reason for nominating this new template for speedy deletion is bogus, on the new template's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

nb: see User talk:Alexf#HighBeam. This was deleted and restored sans my CSD-tagging. The CSD request was not properly acted upon at all. I maintain that it is an inappropriate recreation. Note also that it's since been edited by Frietjes to be a shortcut rather than a subst'd template. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why the next step after one note on my page was to recreate the template? Wouldn't the next step be a response, then possibly DRV? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, yeah. FWIW, I don't think adding the functionality to {{subscription required}} was an appropriate result. That template was not the one under discussion and it has opened the way for more of this promotion of subscription sites in ref sections. HighBeam is an aggregator, like Google. We don't call out Google when including a gbook url, we give the actual publisher. {subscription required} is for NYTimes and such where they are already credited in |newspaper=. To me, these templates are not the issue, it's the "payback" for the "free" access. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

seems like a good idea to centralise the discussion (see thread). Frietjes (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback

Can you please undelete this. Rich Farmbrough, 21:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC).

It was moved to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/talkback, feel free to move it back? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

unhelpful autoEding

Hi. Has AutoEd been changed recently? Edits such as:

• diff of SMS König Albert

are ripping large amounts of intentional whitespace and newlines out of templates. There's no consensus that I'm aware of to obfuscate the wiki-text this way. If it's not a feature of AutoEd, it is editing under a false edit summary, as suggested by this 'fix'. Thanks. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not AutoEd, it's something custom done under false edit summaries:

• User talk:Jprg1966#unhelpful autoEding

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Or not; I see another editor cutting massive amounts of whitespace with AutoEd; example:

• diff of Ian Fleming

They're doing it all over Bond articles. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

if you want some code which will align the =s in infoboxes, I can give it to you. might be a good feature to add to AutoEd? I think the default for AutoEd should be the leave the alignment in infoboxes unchanged, but add an option (maybe a second button) to either unalign or align the box. it should be clear that this sort of a whitespace transformation is controversial though. the rolling up of block citations is definitely not something to have by default. Frietjes (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't use the thing because it is too damaging. I used to use a cut-down version but gave up on even that. I'd consider trying again, though. The defaults definitely need to be uncontroversial. This seems currently afoul of wp:fait accompli. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't use it any more either. People have complained about the whitespace removal before, especially newlines around headings, and whitespace in infoboxes, which can obfuscate other changes. Hopefully I will find some time to work on it some more, and I will disable some of the more aggressive changes (or at least make them optional). Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I also object to the whitespace around heading being removed. Too many editors are blindly droning about with this thinking they're being "helpful". They're not; they're using automation to damage deliberate organisational efforts by others. If you don't have time to work on this much, please simply disable the whitepace.js module. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

it looks like most (or all) of the whitespace removal is isolated to Wikipedia:AutoEd/whitespace.js. I would suggest cutting/modifying str = str.replace(/[ \t][ \t]+/g, " "); which is unaligning infoboxes and str = str.replace(/^(={1,4}) ?(.*?) ?(={1,4})$/gm, "$1$2$3"); which is changing the spacing of headings. an interesting thing to try might be to count how many headings are spaced a certain way, and change them all to be like the majority, but only if there is a clear majority. Frietjes (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Cameltrader/Advisor.js offers to fix towards the predominant header spacing ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I just modified some of the whitespace code to remove the more aggressive transformations. Let me know if you see more, and I can scale them back as well. The idea to have it work in a smart way is interesting. I was also thinking I could have it first split up the article into logical sections, and apply different transformations to each section. For example, extract the infoboxes or other indented portions, indent those or leave them alone, and only do the whitespace compression on the rest. The newline removal is still in there, and needs to be tweaked or removed. I will try to find time to tackle that later. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Olympics

Hi. How difficult would it be to code something which does this to my Olympic bio stubs. Basically finding the url entry on the website for that person and which enters the date of birth to the article and category reading off the website?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(tps) how many pages are there? maybe you should make a bot request? Frietjes (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Definitely possible, but I don't really have the time to do it myself. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:fCite

There's a note for you here. At least that's what it appears to be.^{related edit, more, etc.Also - an appeal to Jimbo!} pablo 20:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)amended11:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, terima kasih, Pablo. I'm here about that, too. I commented. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I was surprised, a bit. pablo 09:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Clarified Fcite consensus: Plastikspork, I have extended the TfD discussion for Template:Fcite (and related templates) to clarify that the consensus you noted is incorrect. Instead, people had offered the position that the templates should be improved, then deployed in article space, such as "develop and test before deployment", rather than "not deployed". See:

WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 15#Fcite - wider consensus

As background, I should note that both User:Br'er Rabbit and User:Pablo X had removed the templates from many articles, without prior discussions or clarification with me. They have taken a somewhat hostile attitude toward the situation, even though the original talk was to expand the Fcite templates to allow more parameters, before use, which is the status now. Hence, the TfD needs to be amended to note the current consensus as "improve and deploy in article space". -Wikid77 (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You are claiming a consensus which does not exist. You are ascribing hostility, for some reason, to your fellow editors. The TfD is closed; the review process does not consist of you ignoring that and claiming a different outcome. I'm out; I'll wait for input from Plastikspork and I suggest you do the same. pablo 10:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

you know that right there at the bottom of the TfD it states "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review)." so, why exactly were these comments not posted on the talk page for the template or at WP:DRV? I too wait for input from Plastikspork, or for a DRV to be opened, or both. Frietjes (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This has now morphed into {{cite quick}}, which is all about reduced functionality. This user is now well into WP:IDHT-style disruption. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

no doubt related to {{cite book quick}}, {{location map quick}}, {{quikflag}}, {{quick infobox}}, and others in the quick series. Frietjes (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, Christ. I'd not seen those. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Another one: {{cite web/smart}} and see:
  • WP:VPT#Cite quick 12x faster for short cites

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a WP:DRV is the way to go if someone doesn't think I closed it properly. I do stand by my closing statement that there was simply no consensus to deploy the template in articles, but also a fairly clear consensus to keep it around for awhile as a testbed. I can't say I am completely surprised that this was ignored by Wikid77, without even asking me for clarification, or going through a DRV. I thought we had moved past those dark times in the past, but I see that is not the case. I don't really have the energy to deal with the situation, but feel free to deal with it yourselves if you feel strongly about it. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

template move

could you watch the move requests for Special:PrefixIndex/Template:All-Ireland Winning Team? it looks like they are in the cue to be moved, but in case they aren't could you do it? thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Template colours

Hi Plastikspork. I notice you recently changed {{90210}}, {{Awake (TV series)}} and {{Desperate Housewives}} to use the default colours. I'd be interested in your opinion on the colours used at {{Thunderbirds}} and {{Captain Scarlet}}. Personally I find them a bit garish. What do you think? Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the last two ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

oh, that is much better (FYI, see this related thread in response to changes to template:Grey's Anatomy and template:Private Practice). Frietjes (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Public art row

I created {{Public art row}} (plus related header and footer templates). Please will you check I didn't do anything stupid? related discussion is at Emitting metadata from 'List' articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. There's some discussion (linked from its talk page) on making some columns optional. Would you be able to help with that, if it's decided that's what's wanted? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Honorifics in military person infobox

FYI: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Infobox Header. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Coordinates text size

Hi, Plastikspork. There is a discussion about the coordinates size in the Dam infofox. Your opinion is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

GAR for Mila Kunis

Just alerting you, as per Community reassessment guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment ("please notify major contributing editors" to a given article) that a Good Article Reassessment has begun for Mila Kunis, at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mila Kunis/1. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

re: Deletion of Template:Start U.S. magistrateship

I noticed you closed the TfD on Template:Start U.S. magistrateship as delete. However, you never actually deleted the template in question, though you did delete the two associated templates. :) Safiel (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

A question for you

I noticed you indicated you added the capability for Template:Infobox school to have a pushpin map. I'm sure it is staring right at me, but for the life of me I can't find it. Can you point me to where it is? I'd like to add it to an article I just created. Cheers! --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Redrose64 got to it. No further help needed. Thank you regardless. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad you were able to work it out. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:IntelCPU

Hey,

I noticed this was still around after the TfD. I've converted it into a quick wrapper, so it should be possible to close this off now by substituting it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like someone else took care of merging the parameters, which is why it was in the holding cell. Now that that is done, a simple change name replacement (IntelCPU -> Infobox CPU) works. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding blank lines

Hello. You have a new message at Gareth Griffith-Jones#Adding blank lines's talk page.

Perhaps you didn't notice my reply to you yesterday evening

(cur | prev) 17:32, September 3, 2012‎ Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk | contribs)‎ . . (287,766 bytes) (+339)‎ . . (→‎Adding blank lines: Done that ... and "Ha!" ... you are correct.) (rollback: 1 edit | undo)

(cur | prev) 17:14, September 3, 2012‎ Plastikspork (talk | contribs)‎ . . (287,427 bytes) (+756)‎ . . (→‎Adding blank lines: Re) (undo)

Kind regards, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (GG-J's Talk) 10:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

infobox

Could you read the talk page of the infobox automobile thx -->Typ932 ^T·C 17:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Tfd links

Hi,

Could you implement the change proposd at Template talk:Tfd links#Display format, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Geobox

Please see Template talk:Geobox#Mountain code and Template talk:Geobox#Mountain ranges. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Rfl

Can you please restore that template and the redirect Template:RFL? I was unaware of the TfD because I only had the redirect watchlisted. I would prefer using the template to adding the code. Ryan Vesey 12:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

ToC templates

Two templates which you deleted, then later userfied (and your reasons for doing the latter), are being discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:List of north–south roads in Toronto/TOC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar (green)

		The Template Barnstar
		A barnstar for you. Really everytime I see your name pop up on my watchlist, I know: another problem has been solved (as opposed to: sigh, let me see what is going on, I have to infer). ;-) -DePiep (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The Biggest Loser Asia Season 2 Vandal/Hoax info

Hello!

Can you semi-protect the article about the The Biggest Loser Asia (season 2) that some of IP user insist that added unknown table from The Biggest Loser from the other countries not related to TBL Asia graphic article due to hoax or vandal info. Pls. help --Puppyph (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox road and browselinks

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		for your changes to infobox road and the USA/CAN browselinks templates. I was stumped as to why it wasn't working before, and you found the issue and corrected it. Frietjes (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents before 1920

Hi Plastikspork. I realise you possibly haven't finished processing the TfD yet, but I thought I'd raise a couple of points it might be easier to address while you were "in the moment":

• Are you planning to merge {{Aviation accidents and incidents in the 1800s}} into {{Aviation accidents and incidents before 1920}}? (I wasn't sure if you were aware of this template, as it wasn't explicitly mentioned in the TfD). For what it's worth, I think you should.
• I think Lebaudy République should be moved from {{Aviators killed in early aviation accidents}} to {{Aviation accidents and incidents before 1920}} - noting that Erbslöh Airship (which is not a dedicated "crash" article) is listed in {{Aviation accidents and incidents before 1920}} and all the other articles listed in {{Aviators killed in early aviation accidents}} are about people. What do you think?

DH85868993 (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• I got sidetracked with some other tasks, but I was planning to come back to it in a few hours. Go ahead and make any changes that you see fit. For example, sort out the whole bold/smallcaps stuff. Otherwise, I will take care of it later. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed the bold/smallcaps. I see you had already done the other two things I mentioned above. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

{{subst:ncd}}

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Moving files to the Commons#Template:Now commons dated about a frequently used template which you deleted. You might wish to comment there. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Motor vehicle infoboxes merge

Do you have time to finish the {{Infobox automobile}}/{{Infobox bus}} merge/redirect/rename please? Chris is busy elsewhere. Note discussion on the former template's talk page Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't really have the time either. Is there any reason why you can't do it? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Ncd

Whoa whoa, hold on here, full stop. This template had a very specific purpose, namely the proper dating of NowCommons. Please reconsider your decision to delete or I will have to take it to deletion review. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, the deletion of this template broke Twinkle, which uses this template. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Deletion of a critical template in TFD. Thank you. —Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like this was resolved. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Tfd Movenotice

Plastikspork - thanks, I think I found and got all the non-talk page links and references to the template removed and the category squared away. --Mike Cline (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Template mergers

May I gently remind you about the mergers decided upon at #Deity templates and #Template:Infobox Legislature Historic. If you could please help complete them, that would be appreciated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is quite a large backlog in WP:TFD/H. It would be great if you could help by merging some of the ones that you nominated yourself. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox discussions

I nominated several infoboxes for discussion, on September 22, 23 and 24. Your wise counsel would, as always, be welcome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but will probably just wait and try to close the discussions. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

template: rail navbox titlestyle

this is a great idea. I have nominated {{Japan Railway Line}} for deletion, since it has now been reduced to a very trivial wrapper. Frietjes (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable plan. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you please move "Template:Virgin Records" to my user pages?

Can you please move "Template:Virgin Records" to my user pages? Also, couldn't the template consist of the links that I mentioned before? We have not had the opportunity to discuss those. Thanks!--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Inquiry

Hi, your name was mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:RFA#Statistics_.28and_lies.3F.29, so I decided to stop by and see if you might be willing to answer a couple questions?

1. What motivates you to do a lot of deletions? Is it your primary manner of participation on Wikipedia or a smaller part of your overall work?

2. What sorts of things or interactions make your deletion work less pleasant? What sorts of changes or occurrences would make you less likely to perform the number of deletions you presently perform?

3. Do you have any suggestions on how the deletion process or conduct policies surrounding deletions could be improved to encourage greater admin participation?

Feel free to respond here or at WT:RFA, if you decide to respond. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 15:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

1. My primary motivation is to try to help out with the backlog. These days it seems like I am one of only a couple admins who closes discussions at TfD. Unfortunately, due to the backlog, this winds up being at least half of what I do on WP.

2. I would say the fairly consistent backlash from folks who don't agree with the way I closed a TfD is the least pleasant aspect. Probably just as unpleasant is when people nominate templates for deletion without thinking about what it would take to actually orphan/merge/convert a template (as is evidenced by the consistent backlog in the holding cell). If more admins were closing the discussions at TfD, I would not close as many, and would then not need to delete as many templates.

3. I have no clear idea. I think there are relatively fewer admins who are knowledgeable about or interested in templates. It also doesn't have the same level of visibility, although probably more visible than say categories and stubs.

Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 20

Can you explain why you closed Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 20#Template:Infobox Asterix, where one person agreed with the nomination (Blueap), and one person disagreed (me), as a "rewrite" instead of a "no consensus" or (probably better) "relist"? The only reason my comment was opposed was for supposed "ownership" issues with the template I suggested, a statement for which no further evidence was provided and which shouldn't have any bearing on a TfD anyway. Fram (talk) 06:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate it a second time if you want. I felt as though the "wrapper" option was a suitable compromise, since it allows for a uniform appearance, but doesn't completely orphan the template. I can see that there may be a good argument that a wrapper isn't needed in this case, but I didn't see consensus to orphan the template. Yes, I could have relisted it, but given that there was no further discussion for about four days, it seems like the discussion had died. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I changed all instanced of it to "infobox graphic novel" (including one Smurfs comic which mistakenly used the Asterix infobox), since that one had all the wanted fields and then some; the only instance left now is an Asterix movie, which shouldn't be replaced by either the graphic novel box nor the book one. I hope that my being bold here doesn't bother you, otherwise let me know and I'll see if I can accommodate your objections somehow. Fram (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No objections from me. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:TerminaLink

You closed Template:TerminaLink (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as delete yet it still exists. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like that one slipped through the cracks. Hopefully, some day, we will have more admins closing discussions at TfD. Luckily, there are some checks in place to make sure these things don't fall through the cracks forever (e.g., checking for old transclusions of {{tfd/dated}}). Thanks for noticing! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

TfD

I forget why I'm stalking your talk page, but I saw your recent complaints about TfD. I don't have the time to volunteer on a regular basis (watch for my new userbox towards the end of October), but if you ever want a second opinion on a TfD—or just see one that you don't want to mess with—feel free to drop me a note. I closed some a while back when the backlog was getting much worse than it is now, but you've been keeping the backlog under two weeks lately so I've felt safe in leaving it to "more experienced" closers. Anomie⚔ 13:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I will probably take you up on your offer. As you can see from several of the threads, it can be a thankless job, with a steady stream of complaints. Although I am sure the work is appreciated by the majority. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox road

Can you take a look at U.S. Route 131 and the recent changes to {{infobox road}} to see what might need to be fixed in relation to the browsers at the bottom of the infobox? Odd enough, U.S. Route 141, which also has additional browsers added, doesn't have the same formatting quirk. Imzadi 1979 → 05:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough, this fixed it: [8] !? --Rschen7754 05:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to do the same thing. I will try to figure out why later, but for now I have to log off. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

the problem is that the value passed to |browse= is being placed inside of <table>...</table>, without any containing <tr>...</tr> or <td>...</td>. this is exactly what you want for {{Infobox road/meta/browse}}, which is called by {{Infobox road/MI browse}}, {{Infobox road/IN browse}}, ... However, other templates, like {{Infobox road/browselinks/USA}} do not generate the <tr>...</tr> and <td>...</td>, so they are being placed inside the <table>...</table> without a containing <tr>...</tr> and <td>...</td>. the "tidy" feature then has to figure out what to do in this case, and simply closes the table prematurely when there are multiple uncontained lines. the most robust fix would be to have {{Infobox road/browselinks/USA}} and others generate a containing <tr>...</tr> and <td>...</td>. but, watch out, since these templates must return "none" when there are no links (see ifeq check at the bottom of {{Infobox road}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Forbestopic

I see you deleted yet another Template providing important financial information, deleting every instance in finance-related articles, based on no discussion. Absolutely none. A request by an IP, and you immediately delete an active Template, leaving no record of the articles which used it. Why would you do this? You deleted The Economist earlier. Are you deleting all the finance-related templates? What is it you so dislike about finance and economics?

• • • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_29

184.78.81.245 (talk) 05:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It had no transclusions, so no, I did not delete every instance in finance-related articles. It was also broken, generating dead links, which is probably why it had no transclusions. I wind up closing most of the discussions at TfD, so odds are those discussions will cover a wide spectrum of topics. I can assure you there is no bias concerning finance and economics, just reading the arguments set forth in the discussions and making a decision. If you have a problem with this particular template being deleted, feel free to start a discussion at WP:DRV. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

No transclusions? It used to have a LOT of transclusions. Can't prove that now though, can I? And since when are broken Templates deleted rather than fixed? No, you clearly have an agenda, same as that IP at Sandia National Labs who "just happened" to know The Economist template was deleted months ago. You two must be very proud of your deletions. Or are you the same person? 184.78.81.245 (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it had no transclusions when I deleted it. I checked my edit history around the time of the deletion, and found no edits to articles removing it. The format used by the template was to generate links of the form http://billionaires.forbes.com/topic/{{{1}}}. After some redesign of the Forbes website, all of these were broken (you can still find links using the old format here. The new format uses something more sensible, which is http://www.forbes.com/profile/bill-gates/. Since there were no transclusions of the template, and it was broken, it was a clear reason to delete it. There was no way to simply "fix" the old template, since the naming convention changed. The old website used "First_Last" (title case with underscore) for the profile, where the new website uses "first-last" (all lower case with a dash). Feel free to create a new template, say {{Forbes profile}} if you think we need a template to link to Forbes website. Although, it seems like there is no real problem here, since there are plenty of links to the Forbes profiles (see the over 500 links here). Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I mistakenly assumed you understood how bots work. Nevermind. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Templates

Any reason why Atlantic Records was not kept, even though it was reduced to not contain any artists? Also, can you please restore the following templates to my userspace?

Template:Atlantic Records
Template:Custard Records
Template:Daptone Records
Template:Fractured Transmitter Recording Company
Template:Good Fight Entertainment
Template:Kickball Records
Template:Massacre Records
Template:Revelation Records
Template:Show Dog-Universal Music
Template:Southern Lord Records
Template:Uprising Records
--Jax 0677 (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

SaQ and Sheikh templates

At Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_3#Template:SaQ, you closed the "discussion", inferring a consensus after only the original poster and two others commented on it in 18 days, stating the templates could be replaced by simple redirects. I contend not only that there is no consensus when only 2 others even felt the need to comment, but that the inference is also incorrect, per my arguments there. The purpose of the templates is to increase accuracy and ease of editing. The redirects will be flagged by bots as links to redirects unless you use a pipe to link to the underlying article, which defeats the purpose. The templates also have the potential to fix the inconsistencies in spelling and capitalization of the dynasty names, since they are all maintained in the templates. These are good, and non-trivial benefits, with no real downside (an extra handful of template calls in an article is nothing compared to some of the big whopping list and table articles that run up against wikipedia's limits). Have you edited any of these bio articles for dynasty members? I believe if you, or the other 3 people that have a problem with it did on a regular basis, you would appreciate the idea of these templates. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have edited hundreds of thousands of pages on Wikipedia, including pages of Kings, Princes, Sheikhs, etc. I read through the discussion, and found the reasons for deleting the template to be more compelling that the reasons for keeping it. Please tell me which bots are flagging links to redirects in articles? If they are, they should be blocked for violating bot policies against such practices. We have redirects for a reason (see WP:NOTBROKEN). I have not see a series of templates for linking to Kings, Princes, Generals, or any other persons with royal or other titles. The number of people commenting was actually relatively high. The typical number is two or fewer. If you think I incorrectly closed the discussion, please list it at WP:DRV, and leave a note here if/when you do so. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

To re-cap, the discussion was:

• User:Frietjes said: "unnecessary link obfuscation" (verbatim, in total)
• User:De728631 said: "Agreed, unnecessary code bit" (verbatim, in total)
• User:Thumperward said: "The correct answer here is to just create redirects at the 'Sheikh' articles and link directly. Redirects are cheap. We don't need trivial text-substitution templates for it." (verbatim, in total. I thank him for at least bothering to put together a sentence.)

That is all. One objector, one "agreed", and only one user bothering to state an actual (though IMO weak) objection of "We don't need trivial text-substitution templates". There are plenty of examples of those, though that is a weak and unnecessary defense because I don't accept the premise – the templates, the documentation, and their use are non-trivial.

I replied, there, in detail, explaining how the templates (particularly SaQ) make the articles easier to edit and can result in better consistency and quality among dynastic bios. Just because nobody's done it before doesn't mean it isn't necessary or helpful.

All that aside, I contribute a lot here, happily (for the most part). Absent a strong reason (like causing actual damage or making others' work harder), I believe I deserve the benefit of the doubt, just as I would give to others in a similar situation. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Nuclear power by country

Please see my proposal to upmerge Category:Nuclear power by country and subcategories (4) to Category:Nuclear energy by country Hugo999 (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you help, please?

Hello Plastikspork,

After successfully downloading it to my vector.js, I have been using Wikipedia:AutoEd since June this year, accessing it from the link at the top of the article page and/or the edit page. Now neither are available. I wonder if this has anything to do with the recent changes to editing Wikipedia earlier this month.

Can you help, please? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 22:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Two things you can try. First, make sure that Special:MyPage/skin.js takes you to User:Gareth Griffith-Jones/vector.js. If that works, then while you are on User:Gareth_Griffith-Jones/vector.js try Bypassing your cache using the "reload" feature for your particular browser. In my browser, I see the "auto ed" button just to right of the "view history" tab at the top of the page. Sometimes if there is lag in the WP servers, it interrupts the download of your js page. The only other thing to check is if for some reason you have javascript disabled. But if that were the case, there are many other things that wouldn't work. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your replying to me so promptly. Thank you. It still does not appear.

To your first point (above) "Yes, it does." I have by-passed and cleared cache so many times. I am on Firefox: AutoEd used to show in the drop down menu with move and purge (as above)

Everything was fine until early this month when it disappeared and I had not changed anything. Over the past two days I have loaded and removed and reloaded so many times, each time clearing the cache. Now today, I have re-downloaded Java, although I already was on the latest version.

It is very frustrating. I enjoyed making good use of AutoEd.

Any more thoughts? Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 08:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you been able to get any other scripts to work in your vector.js? Also, I suppose I could try to reproduce your problem on my computer. Can you tell me which browser and which operating system? I typically use Firefox on Linux, but I can test others. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^{( talk)} 01:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I had been using my vector.js for Wikipedia:Igloo since May this year, but they have a different problem nowadays so cannot test that. (I have removed it ... no difference) I did also successfully load User:Kbh3rd/whackamole.js's Edit tools for the vandal whack-a-mole game last May, soon after loading Igloo (I have removed it too... no difference) AutoEd worked when all three were loaded, and stopped whilst all three were still there.

It would be great if you were able to do what you suggest. I am at my wits end here.

I work with Mozilla Firefox 16.0.1 on Windows 7 using a brand-new Sony VAIO notebook I bought on July 15 this year. Only ever used a conventional PC up until then. The touch-pad drove me 'mad' for the first week or two, but soon got used to not having a mouse.

Know nothing about Linux. Do you recommend it?

All the best! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 09:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Postscript: This is amazing! As a last ditch attempt, I removed Firefox completely (I still had version 15 as well as version 16.0.1) and re-downloaded it. Now look at this! I am so pleased. Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 10:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you sorted it out. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the time you spent on helping me. Much appreciated. Sincerely, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 07:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Pending rewrite of sources script

Good day, sir,

I have just embarked on the long-overdue rewrite of the sources script in my test space. I am also attempting to lay down my thoughts as to how it should work at User:Ohconfucius/script/Sources#General_principles. FYI, the working test module is named function Ohc_sourcename. Note that this is very much work in progress, and that the module will supplant some of the regex currently residing in function Ohc_news_sources(). Your thoughts and advice, particularly as to the organisation/flow of the various tasks, would be much appreciated.

Oh, and is there a way to consolidate the code, as the first two blocks merely perform different transformations on the same strings? Regards, -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 01:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you figured out how to combine the blocks. It would be possible to combine the regular expressions even more, but it would probably make it less readable, and potentially slower. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Ship infobox request

this template is now orphaned, and the documentation pages discussing it have been updated. not sure what to do next. we could redirect it, but that wouldn't help old revisions, but would possibly help editors find template:WikiProject Ships, although if they know about this template, they must know about the other. so, perhaps just delete it? I can't do anything to it since it is full protected. Frietjes (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox military unit - native name

Hi,

Could you add |native_name= & |native_name_lang= to {{Infobox military unit}}, please? I'm not sure how to do it for an Infobox that doesn't use {{Infobox}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Some of your userboxes are not selectable/clickable

I noticed that the last 8 userboxes (from "This user has made..." downward) on your user page are not selectable/clickable. Do you know why that is happening? –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that before. If you have any idea why, let me know. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I figured out it has something to do with the beginning of the To-Do section, possibly the {{hidden begin}} template. I'm still investigating... –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it turns out that all of the show/hide sections on your user are disabling selecting/clicking directly to the right, which is where your userboxes are. I found a solution, however – all you have to do is surround the show/hide sections with a div that has a defined width. For example: <div style="width:800px;">(stuff goes here)</div> –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for figuring it out. I was trying to avoid anything with a fixed width, since it wouldn't work on my iPhone. I switched the bottom few show/hide sections with a different version using tables. The links are working now on my browser. Why, I really have no clue, but they are working for me. Thanks for your help! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome!, and that seems to have fixed the issue. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The basic explanation - although I can't direct you to a decent document on the topic - is that if you have two box-type objects layered one over the other, the top object hides the content in the bottom object. A <div>...</div> element by default is full-width and transparent; but the transparency applies only to optical properties such as the appearance of the text behind, not to interactive properties such as text selection and links. So, if this transparent full-width object happens to be the top layer (as with your show/hide sections), the object behind (your userbox stack) will be optically visible through the transparency, but any text inside it will be non-selectable, and links non-clickable, since they are still "hidden" by the full-width top layer. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox volleyball player

could you, or one of your talk page stalking admins, move template:Infobox volleyball player to Template:Infobox volleyball biography per the TfD outcome? I believe I can edit the template, to do most of the work required for merging it with the coach template, but I cannot move it. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Done! Could you update the documentation? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

thank you. Frietjes (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I dropped your name into a dialogue

Just to let you know. A couple of weeks ago when you fixed the Template:Infobox settlement so the relief map would be optional, I placed the same edit request on two others - Template:Infobox museum and Template:Infobox NRHP. Today, user Mr. Stradivarius has left messages that they don't know how to do this and want me to supply the codes necessary. Not knowing codes or anything else about this, I replied on talk page for Mr. Stradivarius and referred them to the template you handled. — Maile (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - your help is appreciated. — Maile (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

location map+

you can remove the |label= parameter from the {{location map+}} call in {{infobox settlement}}. this is only used for the caption logic, which since caption is explicitly set to blank, the label parameter won't be used. of course, you still need it in the call to {{location map~}}. I am going to work on removing the label parameter from {{location map+}} in other cases. Frietjes (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! I thought it was strange that we needed to pass the label value in two places. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Museum of Asian Art, why is the map not working, answer please.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

you had |latitude =13.2925 |longitude = 52.455833, which is incorrect. it should be |latitude = 52.455833|longitude = 13.2925. you also added dms coordinates using the wrong format, see the documentation for {{infobox museum}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Ryukyu Islands

Hi Plastik. Can you programme Infobox City Japan to display Template:Location map Japan Ryukyu Islands for Ryukyu articles like Okinawa Prefecture etc instead of the main Japanese map? Also requested an svg to replace the one I made. I find the location in the window currently confusing and doesn't show true location.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems complicated, how would you decide which map to use? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Also created Template:Ref GM, for referencing to google maps, can you take care of the documentation/formatting?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

After a bit of help

Hi, I was hoping I could impose on you for a bit of help with a template. {{Census 2006 AUS}} and {{Census 2006 AUS link}} are two related templates used to handle Australian census data. One creates a fully formatted citation with calls to {{Cite web}}, while the other creates just a link. For example, {{Census 2006 AUS|id=SSC18623|name=Raymond Terrace (State Suburb)|accessdate=24 January 2008|quick=on|map=yes}} and {{Census 2006 AUS link|id=SSC18623}} create Australian Bureau of Statistics (25 October 2007). "Raymond Terrace (State Suburb)". 2006 Census QuickStats. Retrieved 24 January 2008. Map and [9] respectively. I've been trying to modify {{Census 2011 AUS}} to incorporate the functionality of a yet to be created {{Census 2011 AUS link}} to avoid the need for two templates, to no avail. Is this possible? --AussieLegend (✉) 12:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure it's possible, but whether or not it's worth it is another matter. If you just want to make sure the URL stays synced between the two templates, you could have the {{Census 2006 AUS}} template get the link from {{Census 2006 AUS link}}. Or, if you really want to combine the two, you could make {{Census 2006 AUS|link}} do the same thing as {{Census 2006 AUS link}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

TfD for NFL coaches infobox and proposed merger

Plastikspork, you just closed a TfD for the NFL coaches infobox, and other editors are now proceeding to merge it into one of the most used infobox templates on Wikipedia, and NO ONE ever posted a notice on the talk page for Wikiproject NFL (WP:NFL)! Something is very wrong with this TfD process when a major and active project was not notified nor consulted concerning a merger target template that is used on over 10,000 articles. This process needs to be halted for review now.

Furthermore, no one ever posted a notice on the page for Template:Infobox NFL player, the proposed target page for the merger, and they are talking about altering the target template. This appears to have been a major process error. I suggest you immediately reopen the TfD and provide proper notice to WP:NFL and place notice on the target template page. Otherwise, you are going to have a riot on your hands. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

go ahead and relist it. I didn't have a chance to !vote last time. Frietjes (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Plastikspork, I now see that you are actively editing again. Please review the above TfD, note that no TfD notice was ever placed on the merge target template (Template:Infobox NFL player), as required, and then reverse your close because of the procedural error (failure to comply with mandatory TfD procedures). I would really like to avoid the drama of taking this to DRV.

On a happier note, the feasibility and relative merits of such a merge of these templates is now being discussed on the WP:NFL page, where any such discussion should have been initiated prior to a TfD. As I have pointed out elsewhere, this is not a simple matter of cutting and pasting three or four parameters from the the coaches infobox into the players infobox and calling it a day. There are very real decisions of compatibility, presentation, and layout and design to be discussed, none of which were mentioned during the rather superficial TfD because WP:NFL was never notified. I accept that Magioladitis (nominator) failed to place the TfD notification on the template or notify WP:NFL as a good-faith mistake and oversight, but let's not compound these mistakes by letting this flawed TfD result stand.

This is my second post on this subject in the past 48 hours. The courtesy of a timely response is requested. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I, personally, don't see a need for a relist or DRV when there is an active discussion at Wikipedia talk:NFL. to reopen the TFD would just fork the discussion already in progress, and would be counter productive. I think we should strive to centralizing discussions, rather than starting multiple threads on multiple talk pages. Frietjes (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I am no longer requesting that the TfD be "reopened," simply invalidated because of the procedural errors. The nominator failed to comply with the required TfD procedures; therefore the TfD is invalid. The discussion at the talk page for WP:NFL is what should happen, and will continue, but we do not need the flawed TfD decision to continue that discussion. If someone else wants to resubmit the TfD nomination after this flawed result is tossed, they are free to do so.

We are still waiting to hear from the closing admin. Plastikspork, are you there? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I will watch the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League and see if there is any reason not to merge the two templates. So far the discussion seems to be in favor of merging, so long as there is no significant change to {{Infobox NFL player}}, which was basically the conclusion of the TfD. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Plastikspork, the issue is not whether consensus may be arrived at WP:NFL. That is to be determined by the participants in that talk page discussion. The issue for you to address, as the TfD closing admin, is that you closed a TfD where the nominator failed to place the TfD notice template on all of the affected templates as required by TfD procedures. In the absence of proper notice, the TfD is fatally flawed and your "delete" close cannot stand. Again, I request that you acknowledge the procedural failures inherent in this TfD, and invalidate the TfD. If someone wants resubmit the TfD after this one is tossed, that is up to them. Please respond and specifically address (1) the procedural failures of the nominator to properly place TfD notice templates on all affected templates, as required; (2) the resulting invalidity of the TfD; and (3) whether you will withdraw your close and invalidate the TfD as a result. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox train

Plastikspork
Please see Template talk:Infobox train#Additional fields and Template talk:Infobox train#Add parameter "fuelcap". Those are "loose ends". Peter Horn User talk 19:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I will try to have a look later. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox political party/seats

Hello,

I notice you were the last person to do any work on the above so thought I'd ask you this. It's a very useful template, and I reckon it would be better at a more generic name (to go with {{Progress bar}}, {{Progression}}, {{Percentage bar}} and so on), and the old name converted into a wrapper. I started doing that (see its history), but immediately ran into a problem. The way I thought you'd pass the arguments was evidently very wrong (stemming from my lack of precise understanding of argument handling), and broke the template. Plus then I noticed there was a named parameter as well, argh. Realizing I wasn't going to be able to fix it immediately, I put it back to how I found it.

Would you be able to give me a hand in making it happen? That would be great if so. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I had often thought that we should move it to a more generic name. How about if we merge it with {{Percentage bar}}? That template has so few transclusions that we could just fix any uses of that template after the merger and not worry too much about compatibility. Or is there a better place to merge it? What do you think? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that one really barely is used at all! The only problem I see there is that the name "percentage bar" doesn't really reflect what this template is, because it can take arbitrary values as opposed to just percentages. That was why I came up with the slightly awkward name Template:Amount of total for my aborted attempt to move it. Can you think of anything better? — Hex (❝?!❞) 00:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

How about {{composition bar}}? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good! — Hex (❝?!❞) 01:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Freemasonry and Freemasonry2

could you move template:Freemasonry2 to template:Freemasonry and possibly merge the early history? also, I think template:Freemason should probably moved to project space or use space. 174.56.57.138 (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. It's unfortunate when the "2" template becomes the standard. I will see about merging the history. As for Freemason, that should probably go to TfD. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Directv channel list

Why in the world did you delete the directv channel list page on october 20hth? It was a great resource. VERY UNHAPPY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.126.168 (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

As you probably noticed from the deletion log, it was deleted per the outcome of an AFD. I'm not the one who closed the discussion, or decided that it should be deleted. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Please remove

Hi there, could you please delete all of the revision history on my User Page as I have deleted and blanked the page now and would like the information to be removed from further searches as some of it could be considered sensitive. Many thanks for your help. Timclare ^(talk) _{(sign here)} 21:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway (Route Template)

I'm having trouble making all the station names line up.

Could you have a look and see where I've gone wrong, please?

See Template:Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway.

Thank you for helping me!

Alastair Carr (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks fine to me? I know there are sometimes issues with route maps if you don't make the template wide enough. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

autoconfirmed user

Hi,I would like to be an autoconfirmed user, to save the books made with wikibooks. I asked in the main forum,somebody suggest me to contact any admin that can upgrade my account. Would you be so kind to do this for me?

Many Thanks! VV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chitammuo (talk • contribs) 16:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The WP:AUTOCONFIRMed right isn't one that's given out on request; it's set automatically. You already have the required number of edits, so it's now a case of waiting for the four-day threshold - you should become autoconfirmed on 30 November 2012. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, admins can also grant the "confirmed" right, which effectively mimics autoconfirmed. I've done that, so nothing to worry about here. --Chris 09:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

history merge

could you merge the history of template:infobox firearm cartridge/Convert into template:infobox firearm cartridge/convert? there should be no need to preserve any redirects after the merge (just keep the lower case version, with the code used by the lower case version). I am working on a second subtemplate of that template, but it's not quite ready yet. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

and the same thing for template:infobox firearm cartridge/ballistics and template:infobox firearm cartridge/Ballistics, and again thank you. Frietjes (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

thank you, and one more template:Into Eternity (band) with template:Into Eternity. Frietjes (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Big Brother sidebar/Indonesia

could you delete template:Big Brother sidebar/Indonesia per this discussion? I have recoded the entire series, and this one is particularly useless, since there was only one season. the only reason it is showing a transclusion is due to the "ifexist" code in the main template. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

"confusing-section" template

Hi, the template "confusing-section" used to accept a "reason" parameter, and display the reason in the banner, but that feature now seems to have stopped working. The only recent edits to the template sems to be yours, so I wonder if you may have inadvertently changed something? I do not have any technical understanding of templates, so I am not really sure what has happened.... 81.159.111.30 (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Try {{confusing|section|reason=your reason}}. These "section" templates are usually just duplicates of the main template with "section" for the first parameter. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your interest. Yes, your suggestion seems to work. However, I think ideally the "confusing-section" template should be repaired so it works as it used to before something went wrong. Either that or "confusing-section" should be deleted and existing instances changed to "confusing|section" 86.171.43.129 (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The short-cut templates should be just short-cuts, but they frequently change in format. Is there a particular article which is broken? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Coordinate errors affecting multiple infoboxes

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes#Coordinate errors affecting multiple infoboxes. Your assistance would be appreciated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

help with map

Hi. I'm doing a GA review on Svalbard Rocket Range, and the article author inserted a map with the {{Locator map}} template, but they say it is showing the wrong location. I noticed you've worked on that template. Can you help out? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it. Someone replaced the image in that template with a new image, but did not change the mapping formula. I have no problem with the new image, but we would need to figure out a new mapping formula for it, and there is no information provided concerning the projection for that image. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for fixing the Arctic map for the Locator map template ... Svalbard Rocket Range thanks you. Noleander (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Infobox settlement

I wonder if you're aware that the default value for the |coordinates_display= parameter of {{Infobox settlement}} has always been inline. Mind you, I don't see any harm in recognizing inline as a special value for the parameter, but I do think the change ought to have been mentioned on the talk page first. What are your thoughts on the matter?

I'm also hoping you'll update the doc subpage to reflect the new semantics. Cheers, —Stepheng3 (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware that the default, when coordinates_display is blank or omitted is to use display=inline. The problem was that coordinates_display=inline would do the same thing as coordinates_display=inline,title, which just seems wrong. I will have a look at the documentation in a bit. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your attention to details. Thanks, —Stepheng3 (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion I think

Is this regarding your edits?

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Removing Science Fiction template from Science Fiction articles. regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Navboxes

Since no one else seems to be asking, I guess I should -- why the removals? I don't mind them, assuming there is a decent reason for it. Just trying to preempt further AN/I trips. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Basically, the issue is that we should try to avoid another Lists of Russians situation. In that case, a group of editors decided it would be a good idea to add Template:Lists of Russians to every single article about a Russian person. Imagine what would happen if we added Template:Science fiction to every single article about something related to Science Fiction. In the Lists of Russians discussion, and others, it has been the general consensus that navboxes are used to navigate between a set of closely related articles. Now, there are exceptions in some places, like say Template:Aviation lists, which for some reason are being added to every single aviation article. However, there has been no such policy made for the Science Fiction template, which is why it was only used on a handful of articles about individual authors, books, and films. If someone wants to revert any or all of my removals, then feel free, I won't be offended. However, I think it's a good idea that this doesn't get to the same point that we got to with "Lists of Russians". By having the general rule that we should restrict the placement of navigational box to articles which are included in the template, we actually increase their utility. Let me know if there is more that I can do to help. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I'm with you on this one. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hitchhiker's guide

I've restored the template - your reason was that it didn't include the article, but it isn't meant to include books. It's clearly relevant. Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Forry Ackerman's name did not have a period after the J

I am sure you were acting in good faith; but the fact is that Forry used the form WITHOUT a period after the J for many decades, as can be attested in many discussions, some of which are referenced in the talk page of that article. I have reverted your move to the incorrect version of his name as commonly used. Full disclosure: I knew Forry: we met at the Ackermansion as well as at cons, and did panels at at least two science fiction conventions together. --Orange Mike | Talk 09:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of WIMA template

WIMA has merged with its sister project, IMSLP. The merge was completed at the end of July 2012. The WIMA server is kept alive, though, for various purposes, including hosting the MusiXTeX music engraving software suite.

The WIMA server also still offers entry points to its composers. Accesses to these items are redirected to the corresponding IMSLP composer pages. Until a few days ago the redirects took place as plain Apache redirect statements in various .htaccess files but are now managed through Apache rewrite rules, looking up IMSLP locations in the WIMA database.

I've performed a few checks of that feature by accessing WIMA links in Wikipedia composer articles. It looks like these redirects are well functioning. However, I do agree that existing WIMA references in Wikipedia articles through the WIMA template are gradually replaced by immediate links to IMSLP.

Reccmo (talk) 10:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

In follow up of this deletion, please have the links removed. Thanks! -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason to remove links from userspace? We generally leave userspace and talk pages alone, and just remove transclusions. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

My request to you made sense when I posted it above. After seeing your reply and looking again at the What Links Here links, I now am at a complete loss as to why I posted the request. Please disregard. Thanks! -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

review request

I'd love it if you'd take a look at my edits in Template:Infobox NRHP/sandbox and give me your feedback. I'm a bit rusty at editing templates. —Stepheng3 (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I will have a look. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! —Stepheng3 (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

{{tv.com}} replacement

SporkBot has been replacing {{tv.com}} with {{tv.com show}} but a lot of the changes, like this one have resulted in broken links. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Checked a number of them, and they all seem to have the same problem. I'll revert these Sporkbot edits now, since they made the articles worse (well, it can be debated whether tv.com links make an article better, but the solution for that is to remove them, not to replace them with a "page not found" link to the same site :-) ). Fram (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I've undone 300 of these changes, but there are still some 1500 left to do. If anyone wants do continue this (perhaps as a short bot task), I would be grateful. Otherwise I'll continue on Monday, probably. Fram (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I made a change to {{tv.com show}} to check for numeric input, so there should be no urgency. I will add a tracking category to see which ones need to be converted to the new format. Frietjes (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

it looks like SporkBot isn't the entire problem, checking Category:Tv.com template using numeric id, there are many that were incorrectly changed by someone else. Frietjes (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

the only current exceptions to the rule that the new id should not be numeric are 90210, 5050 (50/50), 24, 227, and 2020 (20/20). I added a trailing slash to these to keep them out of the tracking category, but will remove this trailing slash once the clean up is finished. Frietjes (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Good work. The transitional code should have been in {{tv.com show}} in the frst place, to make the template fully backward compatible with {{tv.com}}. The numeric codes still work, it's only new programs that don't get them, so a straight conversion is now possible and there's no need to worry about codes until they eventually stop working, if that ever happens. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

now that the tracking category is empty, I have removed the transitional code. the whole ifexpr hack was really just a temporary measure, and is not reliable due to pure numeric titles like 90210, 5050 (50/50), 24, 227, and 2020 (20/20). Frietjes (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the help, and for the tracking category, which will be very useful. I have modified the bot, and run it over transclusions of both {{tv.com}} and {{tv.com show}}. It checks for a numeric id, then grabs the URL from tv.com, then parses the URL, and creates the correct {{tv.com}} link. If any of these steps fails, it just skips the page. Once the bot finishes running through the list of transclusions, I will investigate the ones that are remaining (or are in the tracking category). I have already noticed that there are some that are pointing to the wrong show, or are trying to point to people pages, instead of show pages, which doesn't work since the template is for creating links to show pages. So, in the end this will be a useful exercise, since it should clean up most of the bad URLs (especially the 404 errors). Thanks and sorry about the first pass through the transclusions! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

much better. it looks like there were improper conversions to {{tv.com episode}} as well. I have added that one to the tracking category. Frietjes (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I see Category:Tv.com template using numeric id is full of articles needing updates. It looks like this edit is the source of the problem. Someone decided to change the URL scheme without updating the transclusions, so these links have been broken for almost a year and no one noticed. It makes you wonder if they are actually useful links :) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

good point. I put in some transitional code to make the links work again, since there are over 1800 in the category. it would be great if your bot could fix those too when it does the tv.com links. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Danmarks Traktormuseum

Map is cocked up, can you sort it?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Done, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Bad edit?

I think you may have messed up Template:Infobox French commune when you edited it on December 9. Now, whenever an edit is made to an article containing it (even a null edit), the title coordinates go crazy. See Noyon, for instance. I don't know enough about templates to see what the problem may be. Deor (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, Whatever the problem was, it seems to have stopped happening. Deor (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I suspect that this edit fixed it. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting it out! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Not me, it was Optimist; see Template talk:Coord#Precision. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Infobox settlement - redirects

Orphaning is not deletion, see your concern addressed at Template_talk:Infobox_settlement/Other_templates_up_for_TfD#Orphaning_of_redirects. Comments welcome. And me too, I don't think Infobox settlement is a good name. NVanMinh (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Sidebar

Per someone's request at WP:AN, I'm going through the editprotected requests, including the discussion in which you participated at {{Sidebar}}. I'm not clear — is discussion done? If so, which of the links is the one to the version that should be placed in the template? When you and CsDix have decided what to do, let me know and I'll copy it over, although of course you're welcome to do that yourself. I'm just really hesitant to do anything yet — because of the wide usage of this template, I don't want to edit it and then revert myself in the event of a mistake, given the current discussion at the "Job queue" section of WP:VP/T. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I posted the below before noticing that Nyttend had already posted the above, so apologies for the following duplication:

• Template talk:Sidebar#Edit request on 4 December 2012

Hello there – there's a drive on to reduce the edit-request backlog and I've been asked to confirm whether or not the above is safe and acceptable to implement. What do you think? CsDix (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! CsDix (talk) 11:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Brands

Hello, Plastikspork. You are invited to join WikiProject Brands, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of brands and brand-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)