User talk:Primefac

Template:Multiple image

Hi Primefac. I'm wondering why |background color= in this template is the only multi-word parameter which doesn't use an underscore. Is there a particular reason why? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Couldn't say, looks like everything goes off the module, which for whatever reason does not use a space. Might be worth getting that changed. Primefac (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Deprecation bot

Hey Primefac, could your bot that removes deprecated parameters from infoboxes help me out in clearing Category:Pages using infobox television season with unknown parameters? A group has been recently deprecated which is why it resulted in a big list. The parameters to be removed are: dvd_release_date, dvd_format, fgcolour, pre_season_qualifier, rating, region_A, region_B, region_C, region_1, region_2, region_3, region_4, region_5, region_free, season_name, season_qualifier, season_type, show_name. Apprecaite if you could help me. Thanks! --Gonnym (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I can run it this weekend. Primefac (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Cricket Team

Hi Primefac, hopefully you can help with this. I've been trying to experiment on the Template:Infobox Cricket Team in the sandbox but none of my changes show up even though they are present in the markup and visible as edits in the history. I've been a WP for 10 years with hundreds of edits so it can't be the semi-protected status preventing me? Any changes (even single character ones to labels) don't show up. Do you know what is going on, or what I am doing wrong? The change I am experimenting with is an alternate way of showing the uniforms via an image instead of the crude stick-man drawings they are at the moment. Thanks XrysD ^TALK 11:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

XrysD, this is the only edit I can find from you on the sandbox. If you're trying to save and nothing's coming through, chances are that it's an issue on your end and the page isn't saving properly. Maybe try a different browser? Primefac (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The only way I could get it to show was to edit the actual template - which you just reverted. This is the reason for the change: - File:VictoriaCAKit.svg is the file I want to add to the infobox for Victoria cricket team. Previously I have just added the image directly (see Notts CC) but because of the formatting it doesn't span the whole box. Hopefully now it's a bit clearer what I'm trying to do! If you are opposed to this I'd like to know why as the kit image is clearly an improvement in accuracy over the existing graphics. XrysD ^TALK 17:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

We already have Template:Football kit and related templates such as Template:Cricket uniform to do this; the instructions on the latter page describe how to add a new variation to the image list, though in the case of Victoria cricket team it look like the standard models are pretty good representations of the actual kit. Primefac (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to offer a more accurate alternative to the existing uniform template which is simplistic in the extreme. That doesn't offer much beyond "White Shirt/White Trousers" which applies to multiple teams. Please explain to me why you are opposed to this more accurate representation. XrysD ^TALK 18:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not necessarily opposed to your changes, but things are done for a reason on Wikipedia; there are at least a dozen templates that use some variation of the "Football kit" syntax, which itself has been in use for well longer than I've been editing. Some of the "reasons we do things" a certain way are the vague hand-wavey "we've always done them that way" reasons, but others are due to legal issues or were the result of a consensus-building discussion such as an RFC. I genuinely don't know the specifics behind why we use these low-res "generic" images for kit sources, so in deference to that I'm going to err on the side of reverting changes like yours until a new consensus can develop.

The thing to do now if you really want to change this is to start a discussion. If you want to only change the cricket infobox, then start on that template's talk page or at WT:CRICKET. If you think this change would be good for cricket, football, and any other sports that use the "football kit"-style templates, then a centralized location such as WT:SPORTS or WP:VPR would be a good idea. Primefac (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Primefac, that makes perfect sense now. I appreciate your not cutting a swath through what remains of what I've done so far, but to try and do it properly I think for the moment I'll move all the kit images out of the infoboxes into the article bodies and see how that goes down for a while. It may be that they belong there anyway. Thanks for your help :) XrysD ^TALK 18:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Page protection Skanderbeg

Hi. Skanderbeg is continuously disrupted by IPs. Since every time a semi-protection expires the disruption resumes, can you have a look at the issue and place a new semi-protection, preferably one longer than a month? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Never mind. I made a request somewhere else and the article is now protected for 6 months. Thank you for your quick response. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant to look into this but it got buried by other things. Glad it got sorted out. Primefac (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Mail RfC

There's a dispute in a WP:RSN thread re the WP:DAILYMAIL RfC, closed by you and Yunshui, Tazerdadog, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Sunrise.

I pointed to the NPOVN archive of a May 2017 discussion, the part of the conversation that included closers' remarks was ...

Speaking as a closer of the RFC, we could not anticipate every possible use of the DM as a source in our close, which is why we tried to carve out some wriggle room for legitimate uses. This appears to be a legitimate use of the DM, because it is likely to be reliable in this specific case. It is still preferable to use a non-DM source if/when they become available. However, the DM does not have a reputation for altering the words of the author of the piece, so this can be taken as one of the exceptions we tried to write into the close. If I seem to be misunderstanding something, please ping me Tazerdadog (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Tazerdadog, It is not a matter of "anticipate every possible use of the DM", this is a situation that was explicitly and clearly brought up in the RfC discussion: "This is relevant because the proposal would ban even attributed opinions, though of course there's some muddle about that too." Can you answer: yes attributed opinions are included in the ban, or no attributed opinions are not included in the ban? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: Attributed opinions of people other than the author were considered in the RFC and were included in the ban (IAR notwithstanding). Attributed opinions of the author were not considered in the RFC, and a reasonable exception from the ban appears correct here. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I take it that is also the judgment of the other four closers (Yunshui, Primefac, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Sunrise) so attributed opinions by Daily Mail writers are not included in the ban, provided they aren't quotes of somebody else. Sorry about being wrong. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It happens. Better to ask for clarification than never know. Primefac (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC

Looks like I'm late to the party, so nothing much to add here except that yes, I endorse Tazerdadog's explanation above. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

However, Newslinger says I understood wrong. Quoting one Newslinger remark from a long back-and-forth: "Claiming that ""the closers said attributed opinions are okay"" is extremely misleading, since it conflates WP:RSOPINION (which the Daily Mail does not qualify for, because it's not considered a reliable source) with WP:ABOUTSELF (which is a restrictive exemption granted to all questionable sources and self-published sources)." here.

Is one of us right?

Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It's going to take me a minute to read through all that. Skimming through it sounds like you're arguing the same thing, but again I'll need to sit down for a while and actually parse things out. Primefac (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, I've read through this discussion a couple of times now, and as near as I can tell you're arguing about the same thing but also agreeing; both of you are claiming that opinions are acceptable. At least, that's how I'm reading it. You're mostly just arguing over the semantics of what it's called when you use an opinion piece. Primefac (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: No we are not both agreeing that opinions are acceptable. As Newslinger put it, "Even deprecated sources qualify for the WP:ABOUTSELF exception, which allows their use for uncontroversial self-descriptions in the rare case that they are WP:DUE and covered by reliable sources." I am saying opinions are acceptable not only for uncontroversial self-descriptions but for controversial descriptions about others, and violating all the WP:ABOUTSELF restrictions (self-serving exceptional claim etc.) -- the only special restrictions being as Tazerdadog stated. Unless the closers e.g. you were agreeing that opinions are acceptable "because WP:ABOUTSELF"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Tazer said basically that staff opinions, as written in their own articles, are their own opinions and not edited by DM as some other quotes are, and thus would not be subject to the restriction on the DM usage. Now, the exact location of that reference is up for debate, but that is not (and should not) be conflated with the DM issue itself; the opinions of an author as it pertains to a subject should be listed as such - opinions. If it's being used in an ABOUTSELF perspective then there is no issue, but if being listed as fact in another article there are issues. Of course, if it's being listed as an opinion in another article, then it would still be acceptable (though one might question why we need the opinion of Person X from the Daily Mail. Primefac (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I will point to that answer. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Old unclosed TfD: Link language wrappers

I was wondering if you might be able to assess the consensus and close this discussion. This TfD was opened June 9, relisted on July 5, and is now the oldest unclosed discussion. There was some discussion on the proposal today, but it seems unlikely to affect the outcome.

(you may recall some discussions about the TfD notices: 1, 2) Retro (talk | contribs) 18:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It's actually the only unclosed discussion. I'll get to it when I get to it, if someone else doesn't get to it first. But yes, I'll be taking a look soonish. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, that too, for now... I guess "oldest" isn't technically grammatical when there's nothing else to compare to at present time. Retro (talk | contribs) 18:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, it is the oldest, but it's also the only (you can have both at the same time). I've read through it completely, I'll mull it over, and probably close in the next day or three. Primefac (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I guess that's true, hence the joke where one identifies something in one-item collection as both the best and the worst of the collection; it's really two item comparisons where the comparative is preferred over the superlative by some grammarians. But would not it have then been more accurate to say more precisely, rather than actually? Retro (talk | contribs) 11:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox rugby biography

Hi there, after a recent change you made to Template:Infobox rugby biography, the current club is now appearing twice; once as "Current team" right under the "Rugby union career" section and then once again as "Current local club". Any chance this could be reverted? TheMightyPeanut (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I was under the mistaken impression that the current club would only show up if the Super 14 params were used. I've changed its behaviour. Primefac (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Nickelodeon original series and Nicktoons?...

Primefac, based on the Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 July 9#Template:Nickelodeon original series and Nicktoons result, what happens now? (I've never really witnessed as TfD result like this before!) For example, who is to carry out the split? And what are likely to be the names of the new templates?... FTR, User:Amaury/sandbox/Template:Nickelodeon original series exists, and could easily serve as the basis of the split-out "Current and upcoming programming" template – just so you know! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Anyone who is interested in the outcome is welcome to create, edit, or otherwise discuss the split. It's been listed at the TFD Holding Cell as well so that other template-savvy editors can take a crack at it if they so choose. In splits like these the name is generally decided by those involved in the creation of the new template(s). If I were to do the split, I'd move the entirety of the "former" subbox into its own template, probably called {{former Nickelodeon original series}}, with maybe some redirects such as {{former Nicktoons}}, and keep the existing content where it is (since at its current location it still accurately describes what's in the template).

After splitting, the only thing left would be to go and switch the relevant "current toons" template to "former toons" where appropriate. Primefac (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to update – there is now a new "split" (part) of the template at Template:Nickelodeon original series for the "current" and "upcoming" (live-action) portion of the original. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

AfC

Hi. Now that with all the help from the WMF an AfC feed exists at Special:NewPagesFeed, I believe AfC reviewers should now be encouraged to work from that list. I have been checking through that backlog and I found that the vast majority of drafts are not really difficult to review. It's my guess therefore that AfC suffers from the same syndrome as NPP: too many hardly active reviewers and only a few doing the bulk of the work. You have the advantage at AfC that you can relegate the inactive ones to 'inactive' after 6 months, a feature that I forgot, to my dismay, to incorporate into NPR when I created the user right, but without a huge RfC it would not be easy to do that retroactively. That said, now that AfC has gained recognition by the WMF as an essential process, it's probably time to get a proper user right established for it that can be processed at PERM. What do you think? I would be happy to draft the RfC and create the system if there is a consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The vast majority of drafts are very easy to review, and I definitely agree that it's because of the typical 10/90% people/work split that typically happens. For a small "silver lining" most of our single-day categories are at what I would call "normal" levels (<50 drafts per day) and it's just that huge 2 month category that's killing us.

I honestly don't know if making it an official PERM will fix the activity problem, though I do suppose it will make review of problematic reviewers a little easier (does NPP ever remove folk for poor performance?). Another option would be to make it into a semi-perm like AWB access... definitely possible either way though. Primefac (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

As I said, to my regret when I created NPR, I didn't think to include a clause making it easy for us to remove the right - either due to inactivity or poor performance. However, since the recent introduction of time limited Perms, we are now often according NPR on a probationary period of, say, 3 or 6 months. This avoids hat collecting, and enables a review of their work when they apply for their right to be made permanent.

AWB is a 3rd party app, like Huggle etc., and therefore not an 'official' app. That's why it's handled a special way. However, I think here is now a strong chance of getting AfC promoted to an official function. Several editors like me and DGG have advocated for AfC to be scrapped and its process entirely merged to NPP, however, AfC and NPP are as different as they are similar. Now that there is a feed for Drafts in Special:NewPagesFeed, I think a user right for AfC would encourage more quality of reviewing. See this just as one example of what goes wrong at AfC. RfCs of mine are carefully crafted and usually get consensus. I could clone and modify all the work I did to get NPR agreed and make all the pages to set up the right and now that I have a bit more time and better health, I would be happy to so. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Good point regarding AWB. The more I think about it, the more I think that you're right in that we really need to have AFCH access as a PERM; a perfect example is the probationary period. In the existing structure at AFC I've been setting folks up as probationary and then no one but myself bothers to even look at their edits when they've reached the review period, whereas having it be automatic would at least force someone to say something.

I think as long as we can steer the conversation away from "just merge NPP and AFC" and/or complaints about whether we even need AFC (i.e. rehashing ACPERM) I suspect it will pass. Happy to help craft if necessary.

I know it's still a fair while away, but as a thought for implementing (if it goes through) have everyone that has done a review in the last 30 days get put on indef granting, and everyone else on a 2-month temp basis. That way if they don't want to use it any more it'll just go away. Primefac (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Just merge NPP and AfC. The same knowledge and ability is needed for both. Stop keeping AfC entrapped newcomers in the dark about their immediate ability to edit mainspace. WP:DUD. Except for COI editors. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

ACPERM is a thing, stop trying to make it be otherwise. Primefac (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I can’t work out why you write that to me. Why should AfC reviewers be different to NPP reviewers? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Though the two processes are similar, nowadays it takes less skill and experience to do NPP. NPP never actually does any definitive action: it just marks pages for possible future action, so there's less of feeling of responsibility. It's basically a sorting and tagging operation: first, sorting between the 3 x=possibilities  : Mainspace, draftify, AfD, Prod, Speedy. For Afd/prod/speedy, the final responsibility is on the eventual deleting admin. Then comes tagging: few articles do not need some tags for improvement, and it takes judgement which to use without overwhelming the contributor, but even those who do cursory tagging do at least the basic ones for unreliable /insufficient sources and promotionalism/coi. Those are pretty easy to tell, and they're just requests for improvement.

In contrast, AFC reviewing takes action--it either passes the article into mainspace, or not. it involves judging whether the article will pass AfD, and thus require a knowledge of not just written guidelines but actual practices, it now further involves judging whether there is a realistic prospect that the article will ever pass afd, because if not, it should be rejected, not merely declined. but it also involves sometimes extensive focused help for the contributor. NPP patrollers by and don't do it--their need is rather to get everything at least sorted. (some of us do it when we can, of course, but most of the time we just use the notices). The dialog between u and the successive AFC reviewwers hass become a very valuable way of seeing the different approaches, and tends to coordinate what we do towards a common standard. Most of us take this need to give advice quite seriously--I have noticed an increasing frequence of reviews just making comments, urging improvement before the actual review--and this is a very helpful way to do things. I've learned from them, and started doing it also.

And there's something really critical: nowadays most spam come at AFC, not NPP. 10 Years ago, NPP had to do everything--remove abusive junk, remove advertising,--and sort articles. Currently, the edit filters get rid of most of the really abusive material, and most of the advertising goes to AFC. So in general, I think people should start at NPP, and once they have some experience, go on to AFC. . DGG ( talk ) 09:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Well that certainly puts a different slant on things, DGG, but it does prove that Wikipedia is organic and that things can change since you and I have been discussing AfC/NPP for the last 6 years! I think ACPERM has changed things a lot in the way we now control new content and you're probably right about the shift in tasks - with one reservation: NPPers still need to be trusted with the responsibility of correctly tagging articles for deletion. There's nothing worse than wrongly applying a PROD, AFC, or CSD because a) it can be very discouraging for genuinely motivated new users, and b) - sorry to say - but some admins do not check enough if the deletion tag was justified before pressing the delete button, or they are simply out of touch with new criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

recreating page for Sarah Segal-Lazar

Hi Primefac - I would like to recreate the page for Sarah Segal-Lazar and not contravene criteria G11 and G12. Can I start this in Article wizard? BJLMtl (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)