Open main menu



I think this closure was unfortunate. I have no problem with the outcome in theory; obviously I !voted slightly differently, but I understand the rationale, and my primary argument in the discussion can easily be swept away by the bot flag (though I still see no problem with using this article outside of articles, but I feel like I didn't put enough emphasis on that or get opinions from people who previously expressed their opinion). The unfortunate part is that most of the delete !votes were really voting for removal of excessive year links, while the outcome chosen in this case actually helped perpetuate such links; by automating cleanup, the links are now embedded in a way that is more difficult to track down and evaluate.

But on the other hand, I would be interested to know how productive you viewed my participation in that discussion. It is true that I didn't express the above point during the discussion, so I can see how it all becomes ineffectual on the rest of its face. And perhaps I undermined myself entirely by noting the problem with revision-based worries while not being cohesive in how my deprecate argument fit into my seemingly contrary point. Retro (talk | contribs) 10:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I do agree that there was (intentionally or not) a somewhat "secondary agenda" of getting these links removed. From my interpretation of the discussion it sounds like there is a bot that removes these sorts of wikilinks, which is why I was not as concerned as some others might have been. I also have noticed (over many years of closing discussions) that a lot of the time people will !vote either without reading through the rest of the discussion or without ever coming back to their original !vote to potentially change their mind if someone comments on it or there are new arguments being made. For what it's worth I thought your participation was good; you weren't trying to beat anyone over the head with your opinion but had reasonable counter-arguments. Primefac (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Not harassment, hostilityEdit

I am not being harassed, I just got TIRED, very TIRED of hostility on Wikipedia regarding my English language. From appalling to seriously?, etc. I just needed to take it out or explode. Thank you very much. --LLcentury (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, if you get tired of being tired, let me know, and I'll make it my business. Primefac (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

You can pretty much see the irony at ITN/C --LLcentury (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd like to add that I retire from Wikipedia. I thank the many good faith people whom I met, but enough is enough. Thanks Primefac. --LLcentury (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I wish you well in your future endeavours. Primefac (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Closing discussionEdit

I think I made a mistake by closing this discussion early. Relisting would be better option. Please see the discussion. ~SS49~ {talk} 13:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, my page mover permission expired. Please grant it permanently to my account. This permission is very much useful for me. ~SS49~ {talk} 00:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
SS49, that looks like a good close - nearly unanimous opposition to a proposal seems like a pretty good reason to close as "not moved". As for the PERM, feel free to request indef granting at the usual place. Primefac (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Thsnks so much Primefac. I have requested for PERM. Please grant it indefinitely. Thanks. ~SS49~ {talk} 03:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
If I get a chance I will do so. For the record I asked you to post at PERM because I'm a little busy this weekend where other admins might be able to view the request a little faster. Primefac (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
OK thank you ~SS49~ {talk} 23:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Next stepEdit

Hello P. I hope you are well. The {{Vgy}} has been orphaned but, as it is fully protected, I can't add a speedy delete tag to it. When you have a moment would you please take care of that - or even delete it if possible. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 16:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done. Primefac (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. MarnetteD|Talk 21:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Multiple imageEdit

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 botEdit

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 TeamEdit

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 SkanderbegEdit

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 RfCEdit

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  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 wrappersEdit

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 biographyEdit

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)
Return to the user page of "Primefac".