User talk:Primefac

This is Primefac's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47: 15 days

Thanks ...[edit]

... but why doesn't this show up in the article's text? SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the change is inside of a <ref>...</ref> tag, so it is in the references section. Primefac (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Test section <1>[edit]

Re-indent, yes these are out of order. So what. Primefac (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Test section 1? Primefac (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add new comment (see edit summary). Primefac (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Test section >2<[edit]

Test section 2 Primefac (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, try that again. Primefac (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about removal of RFC[edit]

Hi, I'm just wondering about this edit you made, what's the reason for the removal of the RFC template? Thanks. A Socialist Trans Girl 06:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my reply, there hasn't really been a ton of discussion about his name, and what little discussion there has been has generally found consensus rather quickly. In other words, this is not an intractable issue (yet), so per WP:RFCBEFORE I removed the RFC tag as being unnecessary. Removal of the tag doesn't mean that discussion can't happen, just that it won't be broadcast around Wikipedia that all and sundry should come and give their opinions. Primefac (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, so try regular discussion first, and if there's nobody/no consensus, then start an RfC? A Socialist Trans Girl 07:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much; you could also cross-post to Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics about the discussion to see if anyone there has opinions. Primefac (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Thanks. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Captbloodrock[edit]

FYI, this user is an AfC reviewer. CNMall41 (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh... no reviews. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw them move a couple to mainspace but didn't use the AfC script. One of which went to AfD and with other socks and SPAs resulted in keep (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chip Merlin) but have asked the admin to re-open. The others do not appear to be an issue from what I saw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CNMall41 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Infobox Fraternity[edit]

When you have a chance, could you please work on the addition of the Status flag there, I don't have enough confidence in my template programming to pull it off. Everything that I can find, the tests are whether a parameter/value pair exists, not the value of the value half.I believe that what had been decided is if the value of Status = D, M, Defunct or Merged that the entry in Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing website would not be generated. Thank you.Naraht (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, been meaning to look at the latest discussion at WT:FRAT but haven't had the time. Will take a look in the next few days. Primefac (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. I *think* Template:WikiProject_Canada_Roads tests values to determine what to do (so that multiple provices can be displayed), but I'm not sure. Is [[Template:#invoke:If any equal]] the path to go down? Wish I could plagarize from an Infobox looking to do closer to what is desired. :)Naraht (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbReq[edit]

I didn't know you were an arbitrator. But how did you konw -- in two minutes -- that my request was in the wrong venue? Also, I am currently banned from raising this issue in, as I understand it, all other fora, and I can't appeal at ANI, like you say, for six months. Surely, if I disagree with all of these decisions, then my only appeal is to ArbCom? Thomas B (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of writing out a response to you on your own talk page, since that is where the primary discussion is happening. Please be patient. Primefac (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Template:Infobox rugby biography[edit]

A duplicate parm error (label31/data31a/data31b/data31c) was introduced into Template:Infobox rugby biography by this edit, which affects Category:Articles using duplicate arguments in template calls. Who knew there were so many rugby players? Davemck (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have fixed this problem. It will take a bit for the articles to leave the category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ooft, thanks for the note and the fix. Genuinely can't believe I missed something that obvious. Primefac (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback[edit]

Hey, I think you are good. Can you give me feedback on my edits, AfC reviewing, AfD, and CSDs? Am I going in the right direction to become a New Pages reviewer? Here is my previous request for The New Pages Reviewers right. It would be very helpful to get input from an experienced admin like you. Thanks. GrabUp - Talk 11:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very broad request! I've only given a brief look at things, but from a random sample of your AFC declines I'm not finding anything major (a couple of what appear to be borderline declines but I didn't check the sources). I'm not really involved in the NPR side of things any more, so I honestly couldn't give you any advice if you're working towards that; I would consider the feedback you received last time and maybe wait a bit before re-applying. Your last decline was less than a month ago. Primefac (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate you taking the time to look at my request. I'll make the necessary improvements. I'll also take your advice and wait a bit longer before reapplying. Thanks again for your help! GrabUp - Talk 15:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FPER[edit]

Why are we replacing all these template transfusions with a redirect and an acronym that people are unlikely to know ? Was this decided somewhere ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can replace them with the full template name. The original redirects are vague terms and I have retargeted them, meaning that the original uses (pointing at fprot requests) should be updated. If you are formally contesting my retargeting, please let me know. Primefac (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am formally contesting it: WP:NOTBROKEN applies to template transclusions just as it does to page links. Unless the redirect Template:Editprotected is the subject of an ongoing TfD, it should be left alone. In addition, edits like this are compromising the structure of a page by changing intentional code demonstrations into invalid unclosed elements that were not intended. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it would be RFD, since it's a redirect, but sure, I'll send them all to RFD. Fair point re: the formatting; when this eventually goes through again I'll make sure genfixes are turned off. Primefac (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now at RFD. Feel free to vent your spleen there. Primefac (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, this edit and many like it replaced {{edit protected}} with {{FPER}}, but the template in question is template-protected. I think I would have used {{TPER}} or {{Edit template-protected}} for accuracy. It appears to render the same, but if people are counting transclusions, the data might be misleading. Or something. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned it in the RFD, but at the time these were used the templates were fully-protected, so if anything replacing them with FPER is keeping the historical accuracy; from my time at TFD I know that some folks just can't stand it when the historical record gets changed more than it has to. Primefac (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that replacing old closed FPER templates isn't really useful unless that template is being deleted - perhaps enjoin the RFD next. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retargeting {{Editprotected}} without replacing the transclusions will result in {{request edit}} appearing in thousands of pages. I'm all for "not changing old discussions" but having a dab transclusion appearing all over the place is probably not what anyone is intending. Primefac (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac's explanation makes sense to me. This looks like standard thankless post-TFD/RFD work, except for the bit where a redirect is being used instead of the canonical template name. No good deed goes unpunished. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated parameter removal request[edit]

Hey Primefac, I hope you're well.

I wanted to see if you'd be willing to use PrimeBOT to remove five deprecated parameters from the infobox of just under 24,000 articles. I would be requesting the removal of |nfl=, |nflnew=, |nfl-new=, |nflwd=, and |nfl-wd= from {{Infobox NFL biography}} based on this discussion. The parameters have already been deleted from the template by Eagles247 here. This would save loads of manual work for us if you'd be able to lend a hand. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, can probably sort this out at some point. Primefac (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, I appreciate it. Of course there's no rush at all. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good revert[edit]

Thank you, sorry! Hahaha Zanahary (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:casenav and friends[edit]

Hi! {{ACA}} has sucked me down the rabbit hole of ArbCom templates. This message was going to be a quick note, but quickly turned into a wall of text—after which it occurred to me that you (or perhaps the clerk team?) would know these things better than I would. Therefore, I have opted for a list, and I'd appreciate it if you/another Arb/a clerk could take care of them, when you have a minute. The ones I found in a few minutes of searching include:

{{casenav}} and friends should probably be named something like {{case navigation}}? Of the subtemplates, {{casenav/PD}} should probably be further expanded to something like {{case navigation/proposed decision}} and {{casenav/Talk}} should probably be downcased to match the rest of the subtemplates.
{{ACA}} I really can't tell if this is still in use or not? The note Data on Arbitration Committee activity is now contained in {{Casenav/data}} sounds an awful lot like this is no longer used because we use {{Casenav/data}} instead, but it is transcluded on the current case... If it is in use currently, I can't tell what it does, so what it should be renamed to is left as an exercise for the reader!
{{ArbMotionNotice}} made me chuckle... SIX motions? Rename to {{Arbitration motion notice}}? The code also looks super ugly (defaulting to null is a thing; you don't need to force people to pass in empty parameters rather than simply omit them), but that is beyond the scope of this exercise :)

Thanks for coming to my TED talk, House Blaster (talk · he/him) 23:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion at one point with the clerks on ArbCom's various templates, can't remember what we decided but I'll see if I can resurrect it. Primefac (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WP:THQ § Template dagger malfunctioning[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:THQ § Template dagger malfunctioning. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Primefac. Would you mind taking a look a this Teahouse question? It seems related to an edit you recently made to the template's page when you started a TfM discussion about it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This seems to have been resolved so I don't think anything else is needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven forbid we let people know about deletion discussions... Primefac (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I posted as much in my reply, but apparently the end of the world was nigh at hand and the link needed to go asap. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request for 1917 film[edit]

The plot currently reads "(Schofield) awakens at night and makes his way through the flare-lit ruins of the town. After evading a German soldier, he discovers a French woman hiding with a presumably orphaned infant." When he is making his way, he is fired upon by several unseen Germans, before he encounters and is chased by the one that charges him, the French woman says she doesn't know who the baby's mother is, so "presumably" could be irrelevant to use. so it could be rephrased to "He is fired upon by Germans and after invading one, find a French woman hiding with an orphan child". In addition, it could be added for this section, in which Cumberbatch's character says that Schofield's efforts might have been in vain in the end: "He forces his way in to meet Mackenzie, who reads the message and reluctantly calls off the attack, though Mackenzie also says that, while the cancellation offers a temporary reprieve, command will likely change its orders in a week. 2.100.74.138 (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what page this is, and I'm not going to try and find it. Either way, semi-protected edit requests belong on the article's talk page, not mine. Primefac (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Hi Primefac. I think it's for 1917 (2019 film). You indefinitely protected the page at the end of March 2021 and it appears the IP has an issue with the plot summary. They probably mistakenly posted their "request" here since you're the admin who protected the page.

@IP 2.100.74.138: If that's the case, you should follow the guidance given in Wikipedia:Edit requests and post your request at Talk:1917 (2019 film) instead. I don't suggest, however, you post exactly what you posted above though because it's not clear what you're asking. Edit requests which are unclear tend to be declined (sometimes rather qucikly); for this reason, it's usually best to keep requests simple and clearly state what needs to be changed and why, and also provide some kind of link to a reliable source or relevant Wikipedia policy or guideline in support of the proposed change (i.e. change X to Y because of Z). One thing about WP:FILMPLOTs, though, is that they tend to be more of a general summary and aren't intended to go into too much detail; so, please keep that in mind when making the request. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]