Open main menu


Infobox South African municipalityEdit

You took part in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 4#Template:Infobox South African town and might be interested in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 3#Template:Infobox South African municipality. (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Town was running from 4 to 11 March. Municipality now open since one month. Last in continental Africa. (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Big Brother sidebarsEdit

Hey Gonnym its been a while! I just created Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series) but instead of using they typical sidebar I used {{Infobox television}} which I think looks a lot better and really captures more information about the show.[1] I also followed MOS:TV with this edition as well. Your thoughts? Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 15:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I of course hate the sidebars, as can be seen from my recent clean up to our progress sandbox. So yeah, {{Infobox television}} is definitely the way to go with the series level articles. Hopefully I'll be done by tomorrow with the clean up so we can more easily see what is left. Also, welcome back! --Gonnym (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Finished updating the list. I've marked in red pages with issues. If you agree that the sidebar should go, then the next step is TfD and hope it passes. Some articles seem a mess because they have a few seasons in them. If we are keeping all that season information anyways, then its best to just split it into a proper season article. If we don't want a season article, then the tables need to be cut and replaced with a short season prose summary. There are also some minor issues with correct infobox formatting but I didn't mark those as those would be too much to list. --Gonnym (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for updating the list! Defiantly makes it easier to see what needs to be done.   I think the moment the sidebars go to TfD they wouldn't survive but its best we have replacements ready in a sandbox so we can immediately replace them. Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series) pretty much shows that they are not needed and that {{Infobox television}} is the way to go here. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 03:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Weakest Link (Hong Kong)Edit

I'm requesting that you keep an eye on this one – this is one of the several Weakest Link articles we previously discussed that were not notable for standalone articles, so I converted to redirects. Now the editor primary responsible for this "article" keeps reverting the conversion to redirect with no explanation, and no real attempt to improve the article... --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Where did TfD linking go wrong?Edit

So I noticed the link to the {{Copyright-EU}} discussion in the TfD talk header template were broken. This was caused by DannyS712's edit here where one of the discussions was relisted, but XfDCloser updated both of the links; this could probably be considered a minor bug, since I would expect it to give a warning when multiple links are matched for updating (I haven't used XfDCloser, so I may be mistaken).

This led me to notice the links were imperfectly targeted originally, where Twinkle added a link to the section "Template:Intellectual property laws of the European Union", while the edit summary displayed a better targeted link to the section "Template:Copyright-EU" (I haven't used Twinkle, but the inconsistency between edit summary and header template seems odd to me.)

Interestingly, the link still works even though it didn't use the section title's name, but it targets to the template's name in the bulleted list. I can only surmise {{tfd links}} must add an anchor.

It might have been better if both discussions were relisted both related discussions simultaneously. Then again, maybe they should have been proposed together to begin with to avoid process cruft like this. But it's also always possible I misunderstand Wikipedia processes. eπi (talk | contribs) 01:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

No idea why Twinkle does that, I guess it was just never setup to handle multiple different discussions regarding the same template. --Gonnym (talk) 10:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


In fact, a few number of people try to impeach the use of datas from Wikidata on EN Wiki. So since four year they use different stratagemes. This is the last. If they prefer having small articles, OK, but they penalize the huge number of reader and this is not normal. You can see a difference between fr:Grand Prix de Denain 2018 and 2018 Grand Prix de Denain. And we have an article for the fr:Grand Prix de Denain 2019, it is not the case here. Thanks to our system, the Wikipedias have bigger articles, more liable, and they are automaticaly updated when the race occur, one person do the work for everybody. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the context of this discussion is, but the wider community consensus is not against bigger articles if the information there is relevant and verified with sources. Can you please explain the issue? --Gonnym (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for the late. The issue is there are less articles about some races on EN Wiki (an international language, it is the major point) where datas are already on Wikidata. Thus, on Wikidata, we are also deprived of contributors who could make updates to us who would return here through the algorithms. It is a more wider problem. For numerous datas, the fact we are not able to concentrate all efforts via Wikidata is a problem : in France, we will have elections for 35000 communes in less than one year and updates will be a problem. It is already a problem, see Hélesmes where the mayor dies. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Infobox German locationEdit

What do you think about renaming it to Infobox German place, to match section name and Australian place and UK place in Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Geography and place#Place? One talks of place names not location names. Also, the language might be more precise, a "place" has a "location". Later Infobox settlement could be changed to Infobox place. (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

  • The naming style should be decided other way around. Template talk:Infobox settlement#Requested move 28 February 2019 which was badly started but came up with a few good options, which I think Infobox locality had the most support and would be the best option at a new RM. The correct way to do this would first to get the main template moved to a more correct name, then move the others per WP:CONSISTENCY. --Gonnym (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
    Agree with badly started because I know how WP discussion can go, one better presents issues like for pre-schoolers. "locality [...] best option at a new RM" - why? In Wikipedia "place" seems to be the established term:
    1. Place name origins
    2. Category:Places
    3. Category:Place names
    4. Category:Place name disambiguation pages
    etc. Regarding procedure: outside WP in a scientific environment I would agree. But here, I am not sure. It might be more effective to first have three 10000+ templates using that term. (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
    • The reason why it is the best option is based on the discussions. If you read that thread you'll see that locality had the most supporters. I personal dislike place, as it is ambiguous. Is an "Infobox place" also for a mountain? What about a restaurant or a landmark? Basically, anything can be a place, which makes it a bad name for an infobox. --Gonnym (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
      • "most supporters" in a "discussion" is just one way of determining "best". I prefer to vote for a name that is the best based on the English language and common practice and policies in the English Wikipedia. "Infobox place" would be for any place as long as for the type of the place there doesn't exist a more specific infobox, which in case of a mountain exists: {{Infobox mountain}}. I think this is common practice, e.g. Infobox person is used as long as there is not a more specific infobox. Regarding the term "locality" - it could be to narrow: . RE "anything can be a place" - anything that physically exists. Would science be a place? (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Please don't try and convince me. I don't decide names and I told you what I prefer and what I don't - you won't change it, especially if you are going to try and use stupid examples which you know I didn't mean. Go start a RM and see what happens. --Gonnym (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
          "Please don't try" - what? "convince me" - of what? "I don't decide names" - your recent page moves of infobox templates suggest otherwise. (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
          "use stupid examples which you know I didn't mean" - what do you refer to? Why are you switching to this negativity and aggressiveness? (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

"By country" RM'sEdit

Per this, did I leave any out?... Thanks. --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll see if I can remember any. --Gonnym (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Remind me again what was the RM history tool. That will make my life easier as I can't remember any past RM. --Gonnym (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
It's generally broken. If it worked, it would be great. But every time I've tried it, it goes back only about 1–3 months, and no further. So I don't think it'd help... It definitely would be nice if there was a way to search just RM's. Probably the only "back up" option would be to use "Edit summary search" under User contributions, and specifically search for "Requested move" on Talk pages (only) – but even that won't be 100% effective as it won't catch when an editor launched an RM request... Anyway, I was only asking in case you could think of an obvious one I missed, so no worries. --IJBall (contribstalk) 12:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Here are a few I could find with that search: Talk:Spider-Man (Japanese TV series)#Requested move 9 August 2018, Talk:Backstage (Canadian TV series)#Requested move 29 October 2018, Talk:Paradox (UK TV series)#Requested move 3 January 2019 and Talk:Happy Together (U.S. TV series)#Requested move 3 January 2019. --Gonnym (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Incomplete dabEdit

Re: Spygate (conspiracy theory)... just FYI, there are times when it's okay to target an article with an incomplete disambiguation. That's why {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} reads as it does... "Such titles should redirect to an appropriate disambiguation page (or section of it), or to a more complete disambiguation." Best to you! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  06:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Patlabor: The TV SeriesEdit

This one still needs to be moved to something logical. I can't figure out any reason why Patlabor (TV series) isn't acceptable, based on what's shown at List of Patlabor episodes. Failing that, if it's decided that additional disambiguation is needed, then Patlabor (1989 TV series) is logical. But I'd suggest starting an WP:RM with Patlabor (TV series) as the proposed move "target". Do you agree?... --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, this is a bit confusing and also badly titled by the studio(s). There is one OVA series called "Patlabor: The Mobile Police" as can be seen here and there is one TV series called "Patlabor: On Television" as can be seen here. Here you can see the opening credits of the TV series, which starts out with the title of "Patlabor: The Mobile Police", but ends with "Patlabor On Television". Here is a review (no idea if reliable) that calls it "Patlabor: The TV Series". Links to Amazon seem to call it "Patlabor: The Mobile Police - The TV Series" as can be seen here and here. Here is some news report about International Channel acquiring the rights and which calls it "Patlabor The Mobile Police: The TV Series" (but this might be before a translated version so might not be the name used). here is an updated DVD release which calls it "Patlabor The Mobile Police The TV Series". Netflix also has an entry for it but it's not available in my region so I can't see what name they use. What do you think is the best name? --Gonnym (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd still lean towards Patlabor (TV series), as the others all seem to be "stylizations" from that... Failing that, Patlabor: The Mobile Police would seem to be the next best choice. --IJBall (contribstalk) 01:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Well Kidou Keisatsu Patlabor: On Television is the transliteration of the Japanese name however since this property has been licensed twice by two different American companies then WP:ENGLISH takes precedent here. The full English name used by both Central Park Media and Maiden Japan is Patlabor: The Mobile Police - The TV Series while Patlabor: The TV Series is the common shortened English name but it hasn't been used on any official home video release. Retailers like Right Stuf Inc. will use the shortened names when selling the movies, TV series and New Files individually while using the full name for the complete collection.[2] In the US streaming rights for the series are held by HIDIVE which the image they use is the same for the home video releases that has the title Patlabor: The Mobile Police - The TV Series.
Looking at all the guidelines and policies like WP:COMMONNAME, WP:ENGLISH, WP:NCTV and WP:DAB I don't see anything wrong with the current title. Patlabor: The Mobile Police - The TV Series is the full English title while Patlabor: The TV Series is the shorter common English name. Moving it to Patlabor (TV series) seems like trying to fix a non-existent issue as your taking the "The TV series" and turning it into an unnecessary disambiguation since the title already has this disambiguation. If you feel the current name is not suitable then I would support Patlabor: The Mobile Police - The TV Series but I'm more on the side that the name is fine the way it is. Renaming the article to just Patlabor: The Mobile Police is not an acceptable option since Maiden Japan and HIDIVE is using that name for both the TV series and the OVA series the only difference between the two is the logos say "The TV series" and "The Original OVA series" respectively. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 20:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

TfD for Infobox Shakespearean characterEdit

I would have appreciated a notice at WP:BARD (or my talk page directly as the last, iirc, to edit it) for the TfD nom for Infobobox Shakespearean character so that those with an actual interest in it would have had a chance to comment. As it was I didn't see that until your bot run to remove it just now. Now, as it happens I had previously concluded that that infobox as it stood was relatively pointless and caused more problems than it solved, and might well have ended up !voting to delete (merge) it; but either way I'm a bit miffed to be presented with a fait accompli decided without giving me a chance to at least be heard. Just sayin´. --Xover (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Sorry you didn't see it, but I've followed the procedural as required by notifying User talk:George D. Watson#Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox Shakespearean character and by placing a tag on the template, which appeared on the template itself, all 80~ pages it was used on, and all 7.5k~ pages {{Infobox character}} was used on. Since the template is also tagged with {{WikiProject Shakespeare}} it should have appeared at Wikipedia:WikiProject Shakespeare#Article Alerts, but your projects alerts aren't working. I'm sorry if you feel you were left out of the discussion, but I'm not required (nor is it logical to expect) going over the edit history and notifying each and every person there, more so when your 3 edits are pretty minimal compared to other editors of that template. --Gonnym (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
    • See this thread for why there was no article alert in this case. I had assumed TfD just wasn't supported; but it turns out the bot just hadn't picked up {{tfm}} (vs. {{tfd}}) yet.
      And no complaint about your adherence to procedure. What I'm saying is that deleting stuff like this isn't so critical that there's any particular hurry in getting it done; but when people who care about whatever it is that's up at a XfD first find out about it by way of the deletion log, or an AWB run removing it, it will tend to upset them even if they would have agreed at the TfD. Going a bit above and beyond in notifying those who might care would avoid needlessly aggravating the natives. And I wasn't claiming any great contribution to that template, it was just a suggestion for one possible way to identify "people who might care and would appreciate a ping".
      In any case, I realise now you were (or so I assume) relying on the article alerts bot to notify relevant WikiProjects, and certainly couldn't have known that it didn't handle this particular scenario. --Xover (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Good call on asking about it, I didn't even realize that the article alerts were missing those. To be honest with you, over the past year or so, I either nominated or was part of deletion discussions for around 32 fictional character/race/element infobox templates which all resulted in deletion. Some of the more popular had a lot of participation, but most had minimal, and their template's edit history usually showed no activity. Even for this template, the limited documentation (which was only an example infobox, not an actual documentation) missed more than half of the parameters the template had in the code. From my experience this usually means that the template has no maintainers. Again, sorry you didn't get a chance to voice your opinion on this, but I hope the outcome isn't something too awful to live with. As a side note - there were a lot of mixed usage in parameters with |see_also= and |source= sometimes used for the same thing and other times for stuff completely different. If a character is based on something previous, make sure those articles use |based_on= with {{based_on}}. --Gonnym (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Yeah, you weren't wrong: the template wasn't maintained, had no docs, and was broken in several ways. My few edits were an attempt to start to fix it, but it was clearly too much effort for too little gain. I may take a stab at it again at some point in the future (Shakespeare characters have some unique attributes that are relevant, and some special sourcing requirements), but probably not until there's better infrastructure for making such infoboxes without creating the kind of mess the old template was. --Xover (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Module:Television episode short description and bold markupEdit

Module:Television episode short description does not strip bold and italic markup as seen in Sozin's Comet. I'm wondering, is there a reason why the cleanValues function does not call Module:Plain text? That module does about the same thing for the same purpose but it strips more things (including bold and italic). Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Only reason is that when I was creating the module, Trappist helped me out and I guess he didn't know about Plain Text and I know I didn't. Or after looking at the example you gave, maybe I intentionally left that in so incorrect usages would annoy someone to fix the infobox usage like in Sozin's Comet(don't really remember, but that wouldn't surprise me).

Anyways, would just replacing the code with this be enough?

local function cleanValues(args)
	local getPlainText = require('Module:Plain text').__main
	for _, v in ipairs({'episode_num', 'season_num', 'season_num_uk', 'series_name'}) do
		if (args[v]) then
			args[v] = getPlainText(args[v])
			if (args[v] == '') then
				args[v] = nil
	return args

--Gonnym (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, could you verify that Plain Text handles all 8 stripping I need? It seems that you handle BR differently than I handle. --Gonnym (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
That should be enough; items in a parameter separated by <br /> are usually lists so I though comma made more sense; hmm, Module:Plain text does not remove urls. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Can't change to use your code as I'm getting failures on testcases Module talk:Television episode short description/testcases. --Gonnym (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello I am abdullahEdit

I won't to how to moved name page Wikipedia? How? Joker5122 (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

As you seem inexperienced you should not move pages by youself. Instead, go to WP:RM and read how to correctly put in a request. Once you are done, go to a page you want to move, go to its talk sub-page and place this:

{{subst:requested move|NewName|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. Do not sign this.}}

Fill out the new name you want it to move to and your reason for why. --Gonnym (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


I'm probably going to need you to weigh in on this. It does not surprise me at all that Netoholic continues to ignore the results of upwards of a dozen (or more?) RM's, and his personal preference should not hold sway here. He's acted like NCTV is own personal fiefdom for far too long... Thanks. --IJBall (contribstalk) 13:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Are the RMs I've added at User talk:Gonnym#"By country" RM's not helpful? --Gonnym (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll take a look at these again later – I can certainly add them to the list... --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

One comment about the change though, I think the language is not quite there. Current text:

  • Prefix the country of broadcast (adjective) – (American TV series), (British TV series), (Canadian TV series). Generally the preferred disambiguation when shows are distinct due to region, especially when used to distinguish regional versions of the same format/premise.
  • Prefix the year of release or program debut – (1997 TV series). Generally used when there are shows with the same title within the same region and/or across multiple regions.

Change to:

  • Generally the preferred disambiguation when additional disambiguation is needed. Used to distinguish shows with the same title from different countries.
    • [note: It could stay "region", but we at the beginning of the line use "country" so should stay consistent, even though there are some "Northern American" examples, those are the extreme so the guideline shouldn't be worded to match those]
  • Generally used when there are shows with the same title within the same country.

--Gonnym (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

No problems with this – I'd propose it at WT:NCTV... --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Aerospecs and Aircraft specifications templatesEdit

Could you de-wikify the template links you have placed in Talk pages. User talk:Rlandmann#Nomination for merging of Template:Aerospecs for one. this will ensure that the templates can be eliminated when the time comes. Thanks.--Petebutt (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)--Petebutt (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Gonnym".