Script errors at World Athletics Indoor ChampionshipsEdit

Can you please take a look at the script errors at World Athletics Indoor Championships and Wushu at the Summer Universiade? I suspect that they may be related to changes made to templates or modules around December 1–3, specifically to Module:Country alias‎, Template:Flagu/core‎, and Template:FlagIOC2‎. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The first one; I made it so that {{flagIOC2}} required a "games" parameter. Thought I had fixed all of the outstanding broken transclusions, but I guess not. Thanks for the heads up. Primefac (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick fix. I found them in Category:Pages with script errors, FYI. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Number being inserted in articlesEdit

Hi there, you may be aware already but I'm sending a message anyway to be sure. Pages like Switzerland at the 2020 Summer Paralympics are now showing a number that's coming from {{Infobox country at games}} somewhere, any ideas? - Simeon (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

No fecking clue. {{Infobox country at games}} passes {{Infobox country at games/core}} a "code" for switching the behaviour of the games, and somehow the {{#expr:{{{TALauto|0}}}+{{{TALapps|0}}}}} is ending up outside of the template code. Primefac (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC) Misuse of #iferror; I still can't find the script error that's throwing the template into Category:Pages with script errors but it's definitely not that. Primefac (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Update: Something about the |country= para is screwing it up. Will keep investigating but I think the number of script errors has slowed. Primefac (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, I have no experience with this but it may be that the "else" case is missing? So it shows the expression instead: ; apologies if it's not that, you have more experience with this :) - Simeon (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
As far as the numbers showing up, yes, that was my mistake; it shows that it wasn't the TAL #expr that was throwing the error, so at least that's something... There's something about Austria_at_the_1976_Winter_Paralympics that's causing it to throw a script error, but not, for example, the same country in 2014. Primefac (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Figured it out... there were some pages that had blank |NOC= params on top of filled-in |NPC= params that were causing {{country alias}} to throw a script error, but those errors were hidden because that section of code wasn't actually being implemented. Swapped over to {{if empty}} and it seems to have sorted out the issue. Primefac (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Cheers, nice one! Simeon (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Help with AfC submissionEdit

Hello and Happy New Year, I'm trying to create a page for this guitar player (Yiannis Papadopoulos). I read your comments about the page and why you declined the submission, I tried to add more reliable sources, but it seems that I'm missing sth. I've been checking wiki pages from similar artists and they have less coverage and use less sources, and the sources they have are like the ones I use. I thought that since I'm following a similar structure with the articles below and since the sources are similar my article would be accepted. Can you please help? Thank you for your time and your help.

For example:

Electra Roberts (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Just a note that I've seen this, but haven't had time to dig into it. Will respond as soon as I can. Primefac (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC) Primefac (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Primefac, I added a few more articles to my draft, I updated and resubmitted it. I don't know if you had the time to check my question above- and I do not want to rush you by any means, but I believe that taking into account what I discussed above and the examples of the wiki articles I referred, I believe my draft qualifies as a wiki page. Can you please have a look? Thank you for your time. Electra Roberts (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Bot requestEdit

Primefac, happy new year! I have another bot request related to college football. Many of the college football standing templates use "#" instead of "No." to punctuate rankings for teams. The later is the correct format, per the MOS. See my recent edit at Template:1983 Big Sky football standings for an example of this correction. Could we run a bot that searches every instance of Template:CFB Standings Entry and makes that correction? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd have to put in a bot request, but I don't see why not. Where exactly does the MOS say that we should use "No."? It will help make the case for the BRFA. Primefac (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Just gonna note this ongoing TfD which indicate this issue isn't uncontroversial. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Might not be uncontroversial, but regardless of the outcome of that discussion, the MoS is very clear at MOS:NUMBERSIGN, which no one from that discussion has attempted to change. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can not ignore the MoS. --Gonnym (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, but since this is neither for comic books nor periodicals I think the removal of the # would be acceptable. Primefac (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

wikidata ListeriaBotEdit

Hi. Can you please tell me how does User:Usernamekiran/actresses works, and/or where can I find the information about it? —usernamekiran(talk) 07:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The blog post linked on the bot's page gives more detail, but you're esentially grouping WikiData properties to make a table. In your current sandbox, you're matching "females" (Q6581072) with "pornographic actor" (Q488111) to give a table of all female porn stars. In the example, it pairs "lighthouse" (Q39715) with "Netherlands" (Q55) to give a table of Dutch lighthouses. Primefac (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
but why would anybody prefer dutch lighthouses over female porn stars? —usernamekiran (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


I see. Probably your employ in your reasoning the following convention (even this argument was not given and it was my guess work to assume this so that I could defend Contrapoints) "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name. One can introduce the name with either "born" or "formerly".

I agree on the letter of the law. But for the case of rule by law instead of rule as law. What is the spirit of law and the intention of this convention? As I mention it is discussion between WP:PROP, WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:AB. If I may put it in these words, you didn't went into the reasoning behind the decision. No ethical reasoning was put into the discussion.

But if I may be bold, only this argument may was given. Their is a convention. This has 100% authority and no discussion further is possible about an ethical discussion because it is useless given the convention.

Thank you for your concern to protect the interests of the entities in the case --MasterJin-Chan (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure if you're looking to start a discussion about this or just letting me know you're not happy with the situation, but it boils down to the fact that a lot of people who changed their name (for gender or other identity reasons) often don't want to be associated with that former name, for a multitude of reasons. If Jane Doe used to be Jack Doe but changed their name, then we should respect their wishes, just like if a colleague of yours wanted to be called "Bill" you shouldn't keep calling him "William". Primefac (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The reason I post at your page is, because you were giving your opinion and I replied with a philosophical response to just let you know that such response does add value the conversation, but if the reasoning is put away, then people have to make assumption why somebody decide something. From your argument I can see an consequential and liberal approach. But their is a gap in the liberal consequential approach and also in the logic used.

First I am trying to defend your logic. Deductive reasoning is used.

(P1) People who changed their name (for gender or other identity reasons) often don't want to be associated with that former name. (General Rule: Premise)

(P2) If Jane Doe used to be Jack Doe but changed their name, then we should respect their wishes, just like if a colleague of yours wanted to be called "Bill" you shouldn't keep calling him "William". (Minor Rule: Conditional Premise)

(C) Therefore we shouldn't use a changed name. (I inserted this conclusion to make it valid) (Interference)

The big question now is would this reasoning be sound? I need to defend your claims:

  1. They don't want be associated with that former name. (Descriptive claim)
  2. We should respect their wishes. (Moral claim imposes a duty)

I am searching for sources to support your first claim, but it is hard to find the right sources. Some are talking about what is a name. It would be great if I had more sources so that I could defend this claim stronger. Second claim is dealt in the next paragraph. Still if I could have more sources about the dignity and autonomy of name change it would be very cool.

Assume this Wikipedia page is mine autobiography then I will use WP:AUTOPROB to solve the problem. "If Wikipedia has an article about you, we want it to be accurate, fair, balanced and neutral – to accurately reflect the sourced, cited opinions of reliable sources." But in this case you assume already that the other person does not want the information be published about her education (and in this case unfortunately her previous name), because you presume a consequential notion of harm. Also a Wikpedia page is an encyclopedia, with the aim to inform the reader from knowing things about the world. Articles should then also consider WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT. In this ethical discussion I will defend you on the basis of WP:OUTRAGE, but I failed, because was it morally offensive for the reader? I guess not. What is left to defend your claim maybe deontological argument. If I would use the categorical imperative then would I still want to live in a world in which everyone's previous name is exposed in the name of public knowledge? I guess it depends. The problem is we make a judgment with deontological about the other person. The best option would just be ask the person herself.

In conclusion I am not happy with the situation because the decision is not based on a deliberative way of truth, but merely on usage of an own ethical reference frame, while not deflecting the other possible ethical reference frame. Socrates would Turn in one's grave and would whisper 'the spoiled youth'.

Enjoy your life --MasterJin-Chan (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac, is this even remotely sound or is it fake philosophical rubbish?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
It's basically a glossary of debate jargon thrown together to resemble paragraphs. Ignoring most of the philosophical rubbish, it boils down to "we should publish everything on everyone because we have no ethical frame of reference on the internet." Why they couldn't just say that instead of wasting 3k bytes and a good five minutes of me scratching my head, I don't know. Maybe that was the point; I do rather wish I had their levels of free time though. Primefac (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Bbb23, and @ Primefac you mean rubbish like theoretical maths? Anyways. I think what they are trying to say is, if someone changes their name, then we should not be WP:OUTING them. They change their name because they dont want to be associated with something they've done previously. So we should respect their wishes, and instead of calling them William, we should call them Bob. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

app_begin_year being ignoredEdit

Hi there, it appears that the app_begin_year parameter is not used anymore in {{Infobox country at games}} (see e.g., Morocco at the 2020 Summer Paralympics and Nigeria at the 2020 Summer Paralympics). It appears only using appearances = "auto" also doesn't work; is there a way to make this work again? Simeon (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Both parameters work, but only in certain circumstances; the two countries apparently were not added to the data module, but this has been rectified. Thanks for the note. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Primefac Thanks for fixing it quickly. Is there a way to generate the data module entries for other countries as well? That data module has 68 entries but {{Nations at the 2016 Summer Paralympics}} has 162 nations. Other events may be affected as well so I'm wondering what the general way is to propose changes to that data module? Cheers, Simeon (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm updating it as we speak. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject TelevisionEdit

Please undelete Template:WikiProject Television, it was not meant to be deleted. --Gonnym (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject TelevisionEdit

I don't know if it was accidental but you seemed to have deleted Template:WikiProject Television. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Whoops. Restored. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Please undelete the redirects as well. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
<sigh> Done. Primefac (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
You also need to reprotect the page, since deleting and undeleting a page clears its protection. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
In theory Musikbot should get that, but if it doesn't happen by the time I check I guess I'll do that. Didn't know that was a thing, so thanks for letting me know. Primefac (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Bot assistanceEdit

Hey, do you happen to have a bot that can replace the text/templates used on the TV task force quality- and importance-sub categories (sub categories of the list here) with either {{WikiProject Television task force assessment quality category}} or {{WikiProject Television task force assessment importance category}}? These templates make sure all categories have the correct parent categories, header text and links with a consistent style. I'd do it myself manually but it potentially has 96 sub categories x 24 task forces, so over 2400 categories (but as can be seen by Category:Start-Class television articles by task forces for example, only less than a 1/3 is categorized).--Gonnym (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

What's the difference between {{WPTV task force quality cat}} and {{WikiProject Television task force assessment quality category}} (seen in the category you linked)? I guess I'm not sure why one TV task force template needs to be replaced with another one instead of just modified appropriately. That, or I'm misunderstanding the request. Primefac (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I understand your confusion, I wasn't the one who created this series of templates and it took me a while to understand what is used where. {{WPTV task force quality cat}} is used for the non-task force container category - Category:C-Class television articles by task forces, while {{WikiProject Television task force assessment quality category}} is used for the task force category. I was talking about the task force categories, not the container. --Gonnym (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Edits undoneEdit

Hi I was wondering why my edits to the La Excelencia page were undone. I posted information regarding the bands new single, as you will find in many artist/band pages and I cited the location where I obtained the information. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoDog18 (talkcontribs) 21:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

You copied the content directly from a source, which contravenes the copyright policies on Wikipedia. Even if you hadn't done so, the text was incredibly promotional; you could have just as easily said the same in two sentences as you did in two full paragraphs (but without all the flowery language). Primefac (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!Edit

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

My ANI edit - request clarificationEdit

Hello, i saw you reverted and hid my edit on ANI with the summary of "I'm sure you'll figure out why." - now, i am willing to learn from mistakes but i can't read your mind. Based on logs, i saw my edit hidden due to RD3, and i would presume that that would mean i was reverted for spreading allegations and/or harassment (i was republishing personal information & allegations on another user sent to me on another wikiproject) - but in that case, why isn't the above thread (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possibly relevant) also deleted, since it outs a user's ethnicity? I could be misinterpreting your actions but unfortunately "I'm sure you'll figure out why." doesn't give me much information to work with. In any case, how should i have dealt with the wall of text sent to me at French Wikipedia? Koopinator (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Koopinator it's one thing to link accounts, it's another to pass along information about personal details of an individual. I've already contacted the French oversight team, and I suspect they'll be removing some or all of your message as well. Primefac (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
@Primefac: In that case, i would presume that the above thread (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possibly relevant) should also be deleted - i can't quote it directly, but the sentence that comes after the list of links following "long term abuse multi account" states a user's ethnicity. My mistake stemmed from following that example specifically when dealing with being messaged on another wikiproject. Koopinator (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
That one is a borderline case, rather dependent on if the user has declared their nationality on any other language projects, and even then a nationality is far less "personal" than someone's name. I am a little surprised that JzG would include that, but again if it's more or less common knowledge/obvious on the other project, then there's not as much of an issue. And, while I would not normally hesitate to do so in blatant cases, I'm not sure this is strong enough to merit suppressing over 700 revisions. Primefac (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

AFC questionEdit

Hi, on my watchlist I came across FadedOrange performing AFC reviewer actions on several drafts (moving to mainspace and leaving AFC "accepted" templates on editor's talk pages). With only 63 edits, I know they don't meet the AFC participant requirements. I didn't ask FO about it on their talk page because I don't know for certain that what they're doing is allowed or not, since obviously it's technically possible. I saw that you were recently active in approving AFC participants, so I figured you would know whether anything should be done about the articles FO "accepted" and if any guidance needs to be given to FO. Almost all of their contributions today have been AFC-related. They're keeping track of articles they've accepted on their user page, so I believe they think it's okay to be doing this. Is it? Schazjmd (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing requiring a draft to go through the AFC process. If they are doing improper page moves and the pages should not have been moved out of the draft space, then a discussion might have to take place about whether they should be moving those drafts. As it is, I'll leave them a note about using the AFC "accepted" user talk template, since they're not actually being accepted through AFC and I don't want people confused if a page gets punted back to draft. Primefac (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

fixing table in articleEdit

Hi. Would you (or anybody) kindly fix the "awards" table in Tejashree Pradhan? I am getting a little confused with the code on small mobile screen (BlackBerry). Thanks a lot in advance. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thanks a lot Jelly. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)