This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi Plastikspork,

I worked about the issue "narrow country" and produced this ((Infobox settlement/sandbox)) (version of 00:35, 8 December 2012‎).

We define a new parameter "twocols" and the template asks for the existence of this parameter: if doesn't exist then no changes are made in the traditional procedure.

If the parameter exists then the "image_map"-row and the "Seal-Flag-LittleMap"-row are suppressed and a table of two columns is rendered: the Seal-Flag-LittleMap-column on the left side and a pushinMap-Column on the right side.

Unfortunately the Template:Infobox settlement/testcases page isn't working correctly. There is an error message:

• #coordinates: cannot have more than one primary tag per page

I tested the solution and it works correctly like here: ((Infobox settlement/sandbox))

Linares
City and Commune
Cathedral of Linares
Flag Coat of arms
Location in the Maule Region
Country	Chile
Region	Maule
Province	Linares
Founded	May 23, 1794
Founded as	Villa de San Ambrosio de Linares
Government [1]
• Type	Municipality
• Alcalde	Rolando Rentería Möller
Area [2]
• Total	1,456.7 km2 (562.4 sq mi)
Population  (2002 Census)[2]
• Total	83,249
• Density	57/km2 (150/sq mi)
• Urban	68,224
• Rural	15,025
Demonym	Linarense
Sex [2]
• Men	40,518
• Women	42,731
Time zone	UTC-4 (CLT [3])
• Summer (DST)	UTC-3 (CLST [4])
Area code	56 + 73
Website	Municipality of Linares

If you see no problems in this solution, I will propose to the community the merge of the changes in the ((Infobox settlement)). I look for your advice to prevent the problems I had last time. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 01:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I checked the testcases and it appears most of the pushpin maps are gone? I will have a closer look later. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it disappears the Dot-Map, Seal, Flag and a littleMap. But if there is defined a Pushin-Map then the Seal, Flag, littleMap and the Pushin-Map appear in the 2-cols table. In the Detroit case this doesn't appear because the PushinMap is not defined, but if you add

• | pushpin_map = Chile
• | pushpin_mapsize =
• | pushpin_label_position = bottom
• | pushpin_map_alt = Location in Chile
• | pushpin_map_caption = Location in Chile

to the Detroit parameters, you will see it. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: There is a(nother) difference between Detroit and Linares: Detroit uses the "image_seal" parameter but Linares uses the "image_shield" parameter. Therefore the infobox Detroit with "twocols" lost the "seal" and doesn't get a "shield". --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S.(2): I noted that my solution deletes

• image_blank_emblem
• image_seal

from infobox for ever if "twocols" exists. Images of "emblem" and "seal" are deleted and they don't appear in the 2-cols-table. I will fix this inconsistency, although neither Detroit nor Linares are affected by it. I will tell you when fixed. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 20:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Plastikspork,

I added a "seal" and a "emblem" to the Linares infobox and fixed the extinction of seal and emblem. They appear now correctly when:

• seal and emblem are there
• only seal is there
• only emblem is there
• noone is there

Please, I beg you to take a look to the solution and let me know your opinion. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at the solution, and it still seems that the sandbox version removes the pushpin maps from Case 2, Case 3, Case 5, ... Perhaps the best solution would be to have an alternatively pushpin_map parameter, which would place a pushpin_map to the side of the flag, shield, etc. Rather than worry about logic for two-columns? I might have some time later today to create something, but I certainly should be able to do something over the next week. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Plastikspork,

I restored the current version of template:infobox settlement and follow your advice. I add four new params:

• image_shield_cl = Escudo de Linares (Chile).svg
• image_flag_cl = Bandera de Linares (Chile).svg
• image_map_cl = Comuna de Linares.svg
• pushpin_map_cl = Chile

(image_shield, image_flag, image_map, pushpin_map can be undeclared but in any case they must be undefined)

Then I add the famous two columns table and Voilà!. Any problem? --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 20:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we just reuse |image_shield=, |image_flag= and |image_map=, rather than having four new parameters? Once you get something that is working for all cases, we should probably move this discussion to the talk page, to make sure we aren't overlooking anything. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Plastikspork,

I did it. Now we need only pushpin_map_cl. Let us to pop the corks!. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 21:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I ran out of time to look at this today, but will try to look it over tomorrow. Thanks for the hard work. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the solution with 4 new params. The current solution with only one param interfere in the "old" layout. Usually the old procedure layout is:

• image_flag + image_seal (first row)
• image_shield + image_blank_emblem (second row)

flag and shield will be put now in the other table, so the old table has now still 2 rows but only one object in every row.

• image_seal
• image_blank_emblem

That doesn't look nice. To do it correctly I must reorder the complete old layout. It is very difficult and the other editors will not acccept it, with good reasons. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Plastikspork,

What do you think?, Do you support a solution for the case? Which one? Why?. --Best regards,Keysanger (what?) 17:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Plastikspork,

I wish you and your beloved merry christmas and a happy new year 2013. We can continue our work after the celebrations. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 22:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You bit pretty hard in the case of NVanMinh. I'm sure you'll notice his most recent edit where he describes this as an "unpleasant encounter". I hope you understand that your reverts to his edits were completely unnecessary and that you took a position without basis in policy. I hope that you will try to rectify this situation. Ryan Vesey 07:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that wasn't nearly as unpleasant as being blocked for sockpuppetry. I don't think there is anything I can do to rectify that situation. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

thanks for trying to stop the madness, but it appears to be completely hopeless. the user ignored my request as well, and now insists on spamming my talk page, almost as if he is trying to rub it in or something. the whole experience has been incredibly unpleasant for me as well. Frietjes (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like he has now been blocked, so hopefully that will at least limit the disruption. Something tells me this is not the end of it. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

could you restore Template:Proposed districts of Northern Ireland per this discussion? thank you. Frietjes (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey, what's up, glad to see you're still active at WP:TFD, I haven't been around for a few years. I was just going through C:CSD and noticed someone had tagged this for speedying. it was from a a discussion you closed in September#Template:Totd-random-noborder. It looks like it's still transcluded in a few old user pages, did you want to wait till it was orphaned, or talk to the users? I'm happy to go ahead and delete but didn't want to get in the way of any plans you might have. Peace, delldot ∇. 03:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I typically replace these if there is an obvious replacement that results in no visible change to transcluding user page. I went ahead and added a "style" parameter to the main template, and replaced the transclusions. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, perfect, wish I had thought of that! delldot ∇. 20:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I see that you used border-width:0 - wouldn't border:none have been more normal? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that would work too. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Further to our discussion some time ago, at Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 13#Journalist, please could you do the necessary to remove the undocumented and redundant |family= from ((Infobox person))? I lack the technical skills, but am happy to help where I can. Cheers, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Your best bet would be to make an edit request on the talk page for the template. I will try to have a look, but my time on WP has been limited lately. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You closed the TFD as 'delete' Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 22#Template:Playerhistory here, and the deletion was endorsed at DRV here - but remains undeleted. I've never deleted a template before soi though I'd ask if you'd finish the job please? GiantSnowman 11:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, please can you provide an update? GiantSnowman 14:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I had my bot orphan all the transclusions that weren't inside <ref>...</ref>, or at least ones where it was sure they weren't inside of <ref>...</ref>. I wasn't sure what to do about the ones being used as references, since it would seem that they should either be replaced by a ((citation needed)) or a different source. Let me know if you have any ideas. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think removing it is fine - if that is the sole link/reference they will then get picked up by DASHbot and appear at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs/Full list where out WikiProject can pick them up and clean up. GiantSnowman 16:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable plan. I will have a look this weekend. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Can somebody sort this out? Alignment is messed up♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've made three reverts. This has restored the page formatting; I don't know whether I removed any entries where the content was valid (even if misformatted), it's difficult to tell. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting it out! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#User:Cameltrader.2FAdvisor.js there is an issue with an unmaintained script which Ohconfucius said he would normally ask you about. Can you help out here? regards, Rd232 ^talk 11:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I could potentially help. I have been pretty busy off-Wiki lately, but I may have some time this weekend. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I submitted an article about this a month ago. Since then the Facebook presence and articles about this company have increased and I wanted to know if it could be reposted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KidWX.Jamie (talk • contribs) 22:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You could always try starting the article at WP:AFC, and then get a second opinion concerning notability. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Would you mind looking at Evolution of fish. On my computer (mac plus firefox) the loading never quite completes, with the load indicator remaining active. The problem seem to occur at the point where it reaches Template:Diversity of fish at the bottom of the article. There it fails to parse the last template group correctly, as can be seen here (the list that starts with "Predator fish" should be inside the template). Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem was a combination of two widely-separated factors; either one in isolation would not have caused this effect. First was a colon used to indent a table; the second was colons used instead of asterisks to build a WP:HLIST. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. The article now loads without any apparent display errors. However, there still appears to be something peculiar about that particular article (Evolution of fish). The display problem you fixed in Template:Diversity of fish never seemed to cause a display error when it was attached to other articles. And the article in question still remains "hung" on my system, in the sense that the load indicator keeps indicating indefinitely that it is still loading, even though it has fully loaded. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

As I say, it was two factors in combination, which is why ((Diversity of fish)) displayed fine elsewhere: the first factor wasn't present in other articles.

When a browser appears to still be loading when all the text has come through, this often means that it's still waiting for one or more ancillary files - these might be images, CSS or javascript. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting it out! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

I have a problem with my bot substituting a template per a WP:TFD discussion. The complaint is here. If you could please help I would appreciate it. CrimsonBlue (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I have created a list of the substitutions that need to be checked (User:Frietjes/temp). let me know if you can have a bot do the checking, since checking them by hand will take me some time. I already checked about 300 or so (which are not on the list). Frietjes (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, it looks like you checked about 3000 or so articles? Thanks for figuring out the problem and cleaning this up! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Plasticspork,

I am the creator of 'The Invention of Magic, and the Light Bulb', I am creating it for my A Level Media class and I need to make a Wikipedia page about it as I want it to be as professional as possible. I have only got 4 sources whilst only 2 of them are relevant to the film, is there any chance that you could allow my page to be published?

I understand if you disallow this,

Thank you,

Sean Coyne — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanCoyne1 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You could either (a) start the article at WP:AFC, or (b) start the article as a subpage of your user page (e.g., at User:SeanCoyne1/The Invention of Magic, and the Light Bulb). Once you feel it is ready for inclusion as a main page, it could then be moved. Let me know if you would like me to look at a draft. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

could you restore template:tv.com per template:IMDb? you don't need to restore all of the history, just the part post TfD that makes it act like template:IMDb. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• I deleted it, and I am talking about it with Frietjes at my talk page. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks - Nabla (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I restored the two edits by Frietjes. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A whole string of these have been nominated for speedy "because a consensus to delete this page has been reached at a deletion discussion, but it has not yet been deleted." I haven't deleted because, although you closed the TfD as delete, the history of Template:Football player statistics 4 looks as though you have something else in mind. Over to you. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

They were prepared for substitution, and that has now happened, so they can be safely deleted. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Plastikspork: Can you please move "Template:No Justice" to my userspace at your next available opportunity? Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I am wondering if you could restore the template code for ((Film ratings)) at User:Erik/Film ratings. (I ask you since you deleted it in the first place as a result of the TfD.) I would like to experiment with part of the code in my sandbox as part of a discussion I started at WT:FILM#Movie review aggregator websites. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 00:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

could you move this to template:Infobox NFL biography? the discussion at WT:NFL has died with no objections. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Objection. Discussion was never started. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

  How long do we leave Wikipedia_talk:NFL#Next_step open with no objections? Frietjes (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

  F, I thought we were waiting on a mock-up before rallying CFB and NFL editors. . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

  the plan is (1) move the template preserving a redirect (so no articles will requiring changing), (2) create a new version in the sandbox with coaching parameters, but completely backwards compatible with the current player syntax so no player articles will require editing, (3) demonstrate the sandbox template using test cases, (4) change any coach articles (if necessary) before redirecting the coach template. Frietjes (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

  We should move on this one. It's been three months now! -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

  Mag, then let's do the mock-up, as previously discussed and agreed! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

  F, as previously discussed, NFL and CFB editors need a mockup so they can see what they're getting. No pig in a poke. I will support a merge, but decisions need to be made as to what parameters to include and delete in the merged template. Infobox NFL player, when it uses all of the player, coach and highlights options, can overwhelm the actual written content of many articles because it becomes so damn large. Several of the parameters are either redundant or low-priority. However, you and I should not make decisions that impact dozens of editors; we do not to create an unwieldy, too-large template for the sake of accomplishing a merge. This needs to work for the actual users, not just three or four people at TfD. A quick review of our comments from November shows that the same things were said then. Work with me, Big Guy. I'm trying to do this the Right Way, not the expedient way. Let's not execute a merge before we decide what the result is going to look like: that's putting the cart before the horse. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

  so you oppose step 1? Frietjes (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it OK to use a simple Redirect for a Template Merge, or would that create syntax problems? I say this having only ever executed Merges for Articles, if memory serves me right. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

So long as there are not duplicate transclusions, you can just redirect one to the other after the merge. The only issue is to make sure you don't wind up with the same navbox twice in the same article. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

could you, or one of your talk page stalkers, take the pre April 8th history of Template:Arsacid Dynasty of Armenia and merge it into Template:Arsacid dynasty of Armenia? the template was forked around that time. Frietjes (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Greetings. I just wanted to leave a note about this template. I recommend leaving the main template and the documentation page in place for 2 reasons. Since I stopped supporting the WPUS group of projects several have started talks about splitting back out and its frankly only a matter of time before Texas does too. Also, there are still users who occassionally add this template to articles so without this wrapper template it will just show up as a red link. It doesn't matter much to me either way since I'm not editing much anymore but thought I would drop a note for your consideration anyway. Kumioko (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If someone wants to recreate it as a wrapper, that's fine with me. I did leave instructions about how to replace it in the deletion log, in case someone sees a redlink and wants to know what to do. I also patrol the database report for transclusions of deleted templates. I really don't care either way, but I thought I would do what was recommended in the TfD. As I said, if someone wants to recreate it, that's perfectly fine with me. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

They were already wrapper templates, or they should have been. So is Template:WikiProject Pennsylvania State University. I modified all these so that they were wrapper templates that would display the WPUS template, with the projects parameters linked and generate in Category:United States articles with deprecated tags. But again it no longer matters to me. I'm just trying to save work and drama in the long run. I'll still get blamed for it either way though. Kumioko (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said, if someone wants to recreate it, that's perfectly fine with me. I'm just closing the TfD here. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Just trying to reduce drama. Kumioko (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Just came across your name while looking at the revision history of Template talk:Pedophilia, and, after seeing that you are still active on Wikipedia by looking at your contributions, decided to drop by your talk page to state that it's good to see that you are still around. Hope that you're having a good new year. Flyer22 (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am still around, although quite a bit less than before. I hope you are having a good year as well! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I just saw your user name while using the "Recent changes" feature and was reminded that I'd left you a recent message on your talk page. It's not a good year for me thus far, and no year is for me these days, but I'm getting by. Flyer22 (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

And I had seen your name in the revision history of Template talk:Pedophilia before I left you that January 12 message above, but it only clicked in my head on the 12th, after seeing that you are still active on Wikipedia, to leave you a "How are you doing?" message on your talk page. Anyway, I'll see you around. Flyer22 (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

WHat's up with the infobox in Touggourt?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

coordinates_region for the isocode, not coordinates_type. Frietjes (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:States and territories disestablished in 979, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I relisted Template:Sonny Throckmorton to generate further discussion. Is there any reason this first relisting should not happen? --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I was going to close it, but I guess you want it open another week for some non-obvious reason. You also failed to follow the relisting procedure, but it looks like you figured that out the second time. Don't worry, I won't try to close it again. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I thought that if no one closed it, and there was not obvious consensus, that I would do the courtesy of relisting it to generate more feedback. With that being said, will Template:Funkadelic be dispositioned any time soon? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

My general advice is to not relist discussions if you are involved in the discussion. It might appear as though the relisting editor is hoping to get more votes to tip the discussion in a different direction. There is really no harm in just leaving them open and letting someone not involved in the discussion relist them if necessary. As far as I am concerned, the main reason for relisting them is to avoid the dreaded transclusion limit when there are hundreds of open discussions. At the moment, I appear to be the only admin who is actually actively closing discussions, which is probably not the most healthy situation. I think I will just refrain from closing either of those and let another admin do it. It looks like both are listed at AN:Requests for Closure. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Plastikspork,

I still think that the best solution is to keep both templates separated, because, as this sad case demostrates, the maintenance of infobox is become very "costly". But, well, I am not alone in WP.

End of next week I am going to propose to the community the solution with 4 new params as solution for the merging of the ((Infobox settlement Chile)) to ((Infobox settlement)) unless you have elaborated a better solution. I reverted Template:Infobox settlement/testcases and Template:Infobox settlement/sandbox to the version of 20:13, 10 December 2012 and would like to have your support in this issue. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this has gone on for quite a long time now. I thank you for your patience. You are correct about the complexity of that template. I was hoping to combine the changes with other simplifications of the template. I haven't done much on WP beyond keeping up with backlog for the past several months. There is so much to do. By all means, please do start a thread on Template talk:Infobox settlement. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

	The Technical Barnstar
	For the wonderful tool to convert tables that you created! Magioladitis (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and it looks like you already found a bug! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It was brought to my attention that I somehow mangled a post of yours here. I've tried to restore it to as close as possible to the original. Could you please have a look to make sure that I've got it to reflect your original intent? Thanks PS, and apologies for my screw-up. Not really sure how I managed that. this is what I did. — Ched :  ?  16:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem, these things happen. I'm glad you were able to sort it out. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bajwa, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Seraiki and Sindhi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Plastikspork, I noticed you deleted ((WikiProject Texas)) pursuant to TfD, but this now gives Texas the odd distinction of being the only state whose template is a redlink. Its use may be deprecated, but wouldn't it be better to leave a notice, such as those at ((WikiProject Arizona)) or ((WikiProject Utah)) (just to name two)? If that's the state the template was in when it was deleted, perhaps it should just be restored. --BDD (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

as someone who !voted in that one, it would be fine with me, for consistency. Frietjes (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• I just looked up and saw your comments on the issue previously. I'll recreate the template as a wrapper, in line with other states. If I've erred in the process in some way, please let me know on my talk page; I won't be watching here. --BDD (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  Fine with me. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	I know you probably have tons of these, but I wanted to recognize your experienced, thorough and thoughtful closing of TfDs, which I recently witnessed in a case I found rather complicated. Thank you for your contributions to the betterment of the community. PC-XT (talk) 08:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm hoping you might help repair Template:Infobox settlement/densdisp. Please refer to the discussion at Template talk:Infobox settlement#Problem_with_auto_density. —Stepheng3 (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You were the closer at both Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 19#Template:Massachusetts cities and mayors of 100.2C000 population and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 12#Template:KS cities and mayors of 100.2C000 population. The former and more recent attempted to resolve the propriety and encyclopedic nature of the whole class of these templates. The latter isolated one without a broader opinion of concerned parties for the individual. Should we restore the singleton so that it can be accorded the same consideration as all others if future discussions are held?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Plastikspork. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football.
Message added 02:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Plastikspork. You have new messages at Template talk:Infobox musical artist.
Message added 22:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

There is interest in changing the default alignment of lists used in this template to conform with the norm of left aligning list in articles, and elsewhere on the web. The template is locked down, and you were the last one to edit it, so you presumably have the ability to make these changes. Could you please comment in the linked discussion? Many thanks. - MrX 22:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

could you merge the history of template:Category U.S. State elections by year with template:Category U.S. State elections by year/core? thank you. Frietjes (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

thank you again. Frietjes (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! I noticed you were the deleting admin for this template; I had both created it and posted it at TfD as it was largely forgotten and rarely used. I recreated the template; I am planning on expanding it and inserting it into the relevant articles. I'm just letting you know as that is what was advised on the editing window prior to recreation. dci | TALK 03:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Plastikspork, Eduemoni↑talk↓ has given you a shinning smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shinning Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Eduemoni (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2013‎ (UTC)

I went to give it a whirl the other day but could not get it to go Wikipedia talk:AutoEd#Still functioning? You're one of the go-tos, so I figured I'd ask. Any advice? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I will have a look this weekend. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Plastikspork. You have new messages at Wikipedia Talk:AutoEd.
Message added 22:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Question about changing server names ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you please help me with the "sortable" list in List of threatened sharks. On my computer, Mac with Firefox, it refuses to sort. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Fixed There was a missing linebreak. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks :) --Epipelagic (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

serius admnim
Thank you for using your tools (sporks) for the improvement of the project, for example by closing templates for discussion in a way that makes sense and shows patience and diligence to explain, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (18 August 2008, 8 January 2010)!

ps: you are the only I met so far who was awarded twice by Rlevse, the photographer of the sapphire!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Plastikspork. You have new messages at Template_talk:Canadian_monarchs#Proposal.
Message added 19:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Plastikspork. I am hoping that you are willing to speedily delete ((2009–10 Mountain West Conference men's basketball navbox)), ((2010–11 Mountain West Conference men's basketball navbox)), ((2011–12 Mountain West Conference men's basketball navbox)), and ((2012–13 Mountain West Conference men's basketball navbox)) for me. I missed these when I was mass-nominating navboxes similar to them. The TfD discussion can be found here, with a resounding "delete all" consensus. I don't want to have to put these through a formal TfD when I know what the outcome will be already. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Jrcla2 (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

could you history merge Template:TV Stations by Affiliation in North Dakota with Template:TV Stations North Dakota? Frietjes (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

and template:Infobox bowl series with template:Infobox BCS, keeping the code for the more general bowl series template. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

thank you, and could you also do Template:Legislatures of Malaysia with Template:Myleg? Frietjes (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Plastikspork. You have new messages at Codename Lisa's talk page.
Message added 12:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Codename Lisa (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Plastikspork. You have new messages at Template talk:Fix.
Message added 19:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Jason Quinn (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you changed infoboxes on yeshiva articles to Infobox:school. Could you give me the link to that TFD discussion? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It's at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 20#Template:Infobox_yeshiva -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, PS.

Concerning the relisting of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 8#Template:Sidebar subsection moved from March 20:

It found that the old history of the Template:Anthropology no longer had the message of where discussion of the delete proposal was to be found (perhaps b/c the offending portion had since been modified to remove the notification link).

Possibly some automatic message left at the old date (March 20, 21013) that indicated where the new relist was to be found might be developed for those trying to follow where discussion had moved.

You certainly have enough work not to have do add that information in addition to moving. Maybe Tech support could help on an automatic "relist where" message. Thanks. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The TfD link at the top of the template should be updated when the template is relisted, so the transcluded link will change (see here). However, I do agree that if you are watching the original discussion, you may not see that the discussion has moved. If we simply closed the old discussion, then opened a new one, copying the old comments, there is a problem that the table of contents at WP:TFD would contain anchors for both discussions. There is also an issue with having too many threads open on the same page. We could leave an empty section with a pointer to the new section. Or, the ultimate "fix" is to have a separate page for each discussion, which is how it is done with WP:AFD. Although it does seem like I am the only one really closing the discussions these days, any changes should be discussed at WT:TFD. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Plastikspork. It has recently been brought to my attention that Template:Infobox yeshiva was deleted by you, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 20#Template:Infobox yeshiva, based on the nomination by User Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) (he has been informed of my concerns [1]), based on only his nomination and one other vote, that he had nominated for deletion. I was doubly surprised to see that it was deleted without any input at all from WP:EXPERT editors with WP:COMPETENCE familiar with this particular topic who may have wanted to participate in the TFD had they known about it if he would have placed a notification at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism or if he had tried to ask for some prior input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. I certainly would have wanted to discuss the proposal because of my familiarity with the topic of Category:Yeshivas that are the unique core educational institutions of Orthodox Judaism. Another factor that had probably complicated the nomination was that he started the TFD on 20 March 2013 a week before the major holiday of Passover when Judaic editors are usually busy with their own personal preparations for the holiday. Can you please reconsider your decision to delete, and re-open the discussion to allow for fuller and fairer discussions? It would be greatly appreciated by many editors. Thank you in advance and yours sincerely, IZAK (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

We don't do votes, and there were more than one editors supporting deletion of this 16-transclusion infobox. I've replied to IZAK's other points, duplicated here, on my talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Plastikspork. I have responded to Andy on his talk page [2]. There were only two editors voting for deletion, the nominator and one other, that is hardly a WP:CONSENSUS, even against 14 transclusions, and I have explained my reasons for asking you to re-open the TFD once again, namely that there are very few active Judaic editors on at any one time to deal with the by now vast array of topics relating to Judaism. On top of that, the season before the holiday detracts from more Judaic editors commenting (FYI: editing WP is not part of "holiday preparation" time!), as I explained, because people are busy in real life, and I know from myself, I track lots of things (NOT everything, that's IMPOSSIBLE) year round but prior to a holiday my personal commitments preclude involvement online especially on WP. At any rate, watchlists cannot be relied upon, and the ONLY reliable way to notify the Judaic editors is in one of two ways, either post a comment on WP:TALKJUDAISM or even better, the BEST way is by making an "official" notification that no one can argue with posting the notification at the official Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism -- neither of which was done in this case. As a prelude to requesting an official Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, I am respectfully requesting of you to undelete the template and to open the discussion up again so more editors can get involved once the proper and appropriate notifications have been made. By the way, I can live with any decision, but any deletion discussion must be FAIR to be accepted. Thanks again for your understanding. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The number of editors participating in the discussion was actually above average. The talk page for the template was tagged with ((WikiProject Judaism)), which frequently means that a bot will add it to an article alert page when it is tagged for deletion. The template was tagged, so the deletion notice appeared in all the transcluding articles. The discussion was open for about 19 days, which is far longer the minimum 7 days. As far as I can tell, all the required procedural steps were followed. Alerting WikiProjects is not one of the steps listed in the instructions at WP:TFD. If you think there was some problem with the procedure, please list it at WP:DRV, and please let me know if you do. By the way, there is nothing that says that the template could not be recreated if there is a compelling reason to do so. Of course, it could also be speedily deleted it if it is not substantially different from the one that was deleted. If you do decide to recreate, I suggest making it a wrapper/frontend for ((infobox school)), since that code base was clearly copied to make the template. Basically, you would make the template simply pass parameters to ((infobox school)). I have no idea why you would want to do that, since the ((infobox school)) template is doing a perfectly acceptable job right now, and is in fact, better in many ways than the template that was deleted. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks a bunch for helping me out over here. Cheers! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

i see you have participated in the discussion about the nazi infobox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Nazism_sidebar#Graphics there is a new proposal using the same graphics but including the nazi flag istead of the Parteiadler, please give your opinion on the talkpage linked above Peterzor (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Any chance I could get a copy of Template:Infobox OK Constitution sent to my email for future use--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 04:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you please userfy "Accept The Gift of Sin", "Template:Armchair Martian", "Template:Doogie White", "Template:Jeordie White", "Template:Shadow Project" and "Template:Goon Moon" if no one has already done so? Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to adapt ((INR Convert)) template, so that instead of outputting crores and lakhs, it converts to millions (or perhaps billions) of Rupees. I copied the template to my sandbox and made some changes to it. Both conversions to Rupees and USD work fine when the input is integers. However, when there are decimal places involved, the USD conversion still works but calculations for Rupees start going awry (see here). Could you suggest how I might get the crore/lakh rupees with decimals converting properly? Thanks, -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 16:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems you were able to fix the issue? If not, you could ask at WP:VPT. I haven't had much time to template program recently (or do much more than keep up with the backlog). Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, display coordinates in box and title? What happened to the hotel infobox merger?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems like this was resolved? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you update Infobox building with all of the parameters in infobox hotel, Vancouver Marriott Pinnacle Downtown Hotel I want you to display the rooms suites restaurants etc.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest starting a thread on the talk page for ((infobox building)). Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I've left a question regarding a template at Template talk:NBA seasons § Purpose of unnamed param 1?. It looks like you may have had a more-than-passing relationship with it in the past . —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like this has been resolved. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

1. I notice that
   • User:Plastikspork/date.js (which is linked from Wikipedia:Date formattings#Tools) and
   • User:Plastikspork/monobook.js/script.js (which is linked from your user page)

   both instruct the user to put the importScript into USERNAME/monobook.js, but the default skin is vector. I've put both into USERNAME/common.js instead and they seem to work quite well.
   

2. There may be some risks in doing that--they may not in fact work for all skins--but I haven't tested this. For that, telling the users which skins they're tested with should suffice.

Thanks for the useful tools! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathieu ottawa (talk • contribs) 16:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Both those scripts are pretty old, so the instructions are a bit out of date. I should update to a link to the default skin, like what has been done for WP:AutoEd. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

In closing Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 16#Template:Expand article, you said

The result of the discussion was delete per this and ...

What is "this"? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

That should have been 'this discussion'. I fixed it. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

On what exact grounds was "Template:Yahzarah" deleted? The navbox had four (if not five) articles that did not all link to one another.

1. Blackstar does not link to "Bag Lady", The Ballad of Purple St. James nor "Why Dontcha Call Me No More" without the navbox.
2. The Ballad of Purple St. James does not link to "Bag Lady" nor "Why Dontcha Call Me No More" without the navbox.
3. "Why Dontcha Call Me No More" does not link to "Bag Lady" nor The Ballad of Purple St. James without the navbox.
4. "Bag Lady" does not link to Blackstar, The Ballad of Purple St. James, "Why Dontcha Call Me No More" nor Yahzarah discography without the navbox.

Wikipedia is not a vote, I have defended the claims in question, The Banner told me that I didn't need to go on, Frijetes wrote only "delete" which corresponds to WP:NOREASON. The navboxes for WFAHM and Sonny Throckmorton were kept with only four articles.

Also, Once Upon Our Yesterdays was not userfied per this post.

Finally, the TfD for Template:Rozz Williams has neither been relisted a second time nor dispositioned.

Thank you very much in advance for your attention to these matters. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not clear as to what you are saying here. You can view the template at User:Jax 0677/Template:Yahzarah. The Yahzarah discography seems to do a great job connecting the articles on the subject. You can always add more links to the see also section if there are links missing. The fact that these articles are not linked, seems to be an indication that someone needs to improve the prose. For example, there is no mention of Yahzarah in Bag Lady, so why not start by improving the prose? I will expand my closing statement. As for userfying articles that I did not delete, you should start by asking the admin that deleted the article. And, I don't plan on touching the Rozz Williams template, since I already close far too many discussions at TfD. If you would like, I can try to remember to not close any discussion about any template that you have written. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply - If you look carefully, you will see that I did contact the closing admin. If he/she userfied the navbox, then where is it? You have my permission to close discussions about templates that I have written. If "Template:Yahzarah" had 5 links (the minimum required by WP:NENAN), and what you are saying is true, then why do we have ANY navboxes (which allow one-click transfer between articles) AT ALL? Navboxes are much easier to maintain than "See Also" sections, especially if the artist or ensemble is still recording music. I have posted at WP:AN about "Template:Rozz Williams", so I guess I will "let the system work". --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. In the past few days users using AutoEd have been adding refs to disputeyourcreditreport.us. You can see what has been captured at m:User:COIBot/LinkReports/disputeyourcreditreport.us. The other edits by the users seem to be okay, so not sure what is going on, however, it points back to either a conspiracy to use the tool to spam, or something quirky at base. It would be great if you could have a look at the matter. Note that I have tidied up the spam. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems like it's unrelated. The AutoEd tool will make some changes (like the whitespace and mdash edits), then append it's tagline to the edit summary. The user can make more edits before and after, and it will look like these edits were made by the tool. The code base is fully protected. Someone could copy the code to a local userspace, and then modify it, but the main code base has not been changed as far as I can tell. I think some users use AutoEd as a way of quickly becoming autoconfirmed, by making easy uncontroversial clean up edits. This then allows them to move on to spam and other unconstructive edits. Thanks for the notification! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there,

I noticed that your bot has deleted the ((expand)) template from the Suffa article. In this case, though, it was one of only two issues within the ((multiple issues)) template, meaning that there is now only one issue, but the ((multiple issues)) template remains, despite no longer being needed. I have manually fixed it for this article, but not sure about other articles that may be similarly affected. Is there another bot that will fix those? —sroc (talk) 07:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that as well. I had a bot make a second pass to clean up. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

see the nazism infobox, user:DIREKTOR keeps distorting the infobox without consensus and acusses me of "non-consensus edits" despite it was him who keep making new changes, something must be done here Peterzor (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

could you history merge template:OCDSB Public Schools into template:OCDSB schools? thank you. Frietjes (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Done! And merged Template:OCDSB Schools. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

thank you. Frietjes (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, did you see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Generating a JS library for cleanup scripts? I'm thinking of integrating AutoEd into AFCH.

Moreover I think AFCH has some nice features which should be probably integrated into AutoED, e.g. the Wikilink corrector placed in the function afcHelper_cleanup (search at User:Mabdul/afc beta.js for "//Wikilink correction") should be integrated into Wikipedia:AutoEd/wikilinks.js. What do you think?

I'm willing to add more functions in future. I also do believe that many of the HTML comments should be removed which are in this script. (simply scroll deeper)

mabdul 18:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I notice that you closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 21#Template:Isa, and I was wondering if you would reconsider the implications of your closure. I had no idea that the discussion was happening - I have had no involvement with the template. But I have Template:Jesus on my watchlist, and have just noticed what I consider to be inappropriate links added to the template as a result of the merge. I notice there was 5 keep !votes, 2 deletes, 1 "delete or merge", and 2 merges. That doesn't sound like a consensus to merge to me. StAnselm (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

(tps) WP:NOTAVOTE and Wikipedia:Consensus not numbers? Frietjes (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

As Frietjes pointed out there is more to closing a discussion than simply counting votes. I saw no compelling argument that there should be a separate Muslim Jesus template, when there is already a Jesus in Islam section in the main Jesus template. The !votes for delete are basically saying the same thing. However, there is also no reason why any core articles on Jesus in Islam wouldn't in that section of the sidebar, which is why I said merge. Please feel free to continue to discuss the appropriateness of each link on the talk page for the Jesus template. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Plastikspork,

After one year and a failed attemp to merge [3], I think the best way is to reconsider your being deleted - Tag.

I don't know the reasons but my proposal was neither implemented nor refused despite significant support.

I see following options here:

1. You insert the proposal in the "Infobox settlement"
2. You remove the ((being deleted)) tag in the Chile template
3. I initiate a Wikipedia:Deletion review
4. I let it as is and forget it

This message is part of the option 3, but you can do 1 or 2. Option 4 is unacceptable in en:WP, the temple of the knowledge. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Now merged with infobox settlement. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

G r e a t, S u p e r, !!!. Thank you Plastikspork, --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, can you replace this, i've asked Andy to TFD it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

So done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

could you history merge Chittagong Education Board into Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Chittagong? thank you. 198.102.153.1 (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I was just about to create a new template called Template:3O in the spirit of ((Help me)), ((Admin help)), ((Edit semiprotected)), ((Edit protected)), and so-forth when I noticed there was a template there previously deleted. When I visit the TfD discussion, I notice there wasn't a lot of discussion as TransporterMan and an IP user were the only ones to comment on it at all. I was wondering what the previous template was and if it would be alright to recreate the template in the spirit I mentioned above as a companion to a userbox I would like to create similar to ((User:Technical 13/Userboxes/Help me responder)) and ((User:Technical 13/Userboxes/Admin help responder)). I've echoed TM in this query as well and hopefully he will reply as well. Thank you for your time. Technical 13 (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If this is to be used in conjunction with WP:Third opinion, you should start a thread at WT:Third opinion. The reason why this template was deleted was per the discussion on that talk page. The discussion at TfD was more limited than the discussion on the project page. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Please add Infobox drama parameters to Infobox play! --Tito Dutta (contact) 04:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please make your request on the talk page for ((Infobox play)), with a justification for each parameter or parameter-set. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

And where shall I get the parameters now? We worked hard to find and make a list of mostly needed parameters and they have deleted everything! --Tito Dutta (contact) 17:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

(tps) perhaps you can just examine the diffs [4] [5] [6]? it looks like no information was actually removed, but simply commented out. so you want, director, decoration, music, actors, lighting, background_music, all related to the premiere. some of these may be a bit trivial to mention in the infobox? you should really be discussing this at template talk:infobox play, and not here. Frietjes (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the place to discuss new parameters is at Template talk:Infobox play. Thanks for the replies! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

see template talk:Sidebar#Embedding, and I think we should consider removing the extra bold tags from around the |title= when |child=yes in ((infobox)). this will fix the double bolding problem, and I can remove that warning from the documentation. the worst thing that could happen is that some embedded headings become unbolded, which would could be easily fixed by adding the bolding directly to the tranclusion (see this thread). Frietjes (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Great. I will respond there! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Why were Template:Unco & Template:Egypt Central deleted (there is no explanation at the TfD)? Was the link to Devour the Day taken into consideration? As I mentioned before, at the end of the day, whether DTD is a new band or a continuation of EC is semantics. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

There was consensus to delete unco as a template with the majority of editors arguing that it creates unnecessary busy work, since it is easier to just simply uncollapse whatever is collapsed. I did not see any compelling argument to the contrary. There was consensus to delete Egypt Central due to the lack of primary links, and that the band is no longer active, so will not be generating any new primary links. Of course, this does not mean that there won't be consensus to create a Devour the Day navigation box. But, it looks like that band has no articles about notable albums at the moment. It looks like there both band articles are connected through wikilinking, so readers will be able to find them both. If not, you should go ahead and add more wikilinks, or a see also section, or even write some prose. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Namespacing meta categories. Cheers, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Metropolitan90 (talk · contribs) undid what you restored per User_talk:Plastikspork/Archive_10#Avoid_DRV. Then he halfway reversed it with no talk page and a CSD tag.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems this was resolved? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

There is one last issue. We are trying to get some changes made at T:AH to correctly document the history of the template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, please delete User:Tbhotch and User:(CA)Giacobbe, because two users has contributed without complaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.177.13 (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, Plastikspork.

On your action above at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 8#Template:Sidebar subsection, there is this prefatory statement:

The result of the discussion was delete, seems that this template is now unused and now redundant to ((sidebar|child=yes)). If this is not the case, please let me know, so we can find a solution. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The deleted Template:Sidebar subsection ("TSS") included possibly 6 or more sidebar examples where it was in use. Last time I checked (more than a month ago), they were intact, except for the example that I myself changed to use a simpler format than of TSS at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:History_of_Western_philosophy&diff=553491016&oldid=552076629. Conceivably, there was a change later, but I have no knowledge of that. May I ask if you have evidence that there were no sidebars using TSS at the time of its deletion? (If some remained with TSS, I'd guess that they would be orphaned, just as in the "Before" case of the previous link.§) Thank you.

§ It would unnecessarily complicate things to comment on the alleged redundancy of TSS pending a response on the above. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

At the close of the discussion, it was used on the following pages: User:Schrauwers/sandbox, User:CsDix/sandbox, Template:History of Western philosophy/sandbox, and Template talk:History of Western philosophy. The only reason for substituting the template on these pages was to avoid them being listed in Wikipedia:Database reports/Transclusions of deleted templates. It's possible that it was replaced during the time the discussion was open, which was 9 to 10 weeks, which is unusually long. As far as redundancy goes, it appears the new child=yes feature is documented in Template:Sidebar/doc. To get the italics, you would just use |headingstyle=font-weight:normal; font-weight:italic. The HTML markup will use <th>...</th> tags for these subheadings, like the top level headings, which should be the correct logical markup. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Plastikspork. Thanks for making this edit in User:Northernhenge/sandbox. I think people normally try things out in their own sandboxes, not other people's, but thanks for drawing the different location map syntax to my attention. --Northernhenge (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

could you merge the history of University at Buffalo's Davis Hall with Barbara and Jack Davis Hall? thank you. Frietjes (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

could you history merge this with the template to which it redirects? Frietjes (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, can you replace the nasty set boxes with infobox settlement.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't have time at the moment. Maybe ask Frietjes, who seems to be good at that sort of thing? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

updated. someone should check the location map (see Confine which is outside of the borders). Frietjes (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Excellent work, thanks!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I also fixed the location map problem. Frietjes (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, excellent work! Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Just curious, but why are you moving so many templates into the userspace of Jax? The Banner talk 23:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

He had previously requested that I do so for any that close as delete. Would it be possible for you to reduce the number that you are nominating per day? I think it would make things go a bit smoother. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I am finished with checking all 1290 still existing templates created by Jax, so no more or very limited nominations will come forward now.

It triggered my curiosity a bit because I don't have particularly good experiences with Jax. In fact, I fear that he may relaunch the same dodgy templates after his six month topic ban on templates. I hope that you know that he has that topic ban... The Banner talk 00:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I would back off if I were you at this point and try to AGF going forward. As far as I can tell, most of the templates being nominated were created back in early 2012. The shear number being nominated by you has the appearance of an editor hounding another editor, even if that isn't the case, it doesn't look good. Leaving them in Jax's userspace is actually a good thing since it leaves a record of what was deleted, and some can be moved back down the road if more notable content is created. Anything that encourages writing more notable content (and less obsession with navboxes) is a good thing in my opinion. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I hated the checking process because it is soooo frustrating and annoying. But I deemed it necessary and in the best interest from Wikipedia. I have a long list of still-to-be-fixed templates on my talkpage and I will slowly fix them. I did not count what I nominated or set aside, but I guestimate it as about 20-30% of all templates created by Jax.

But you are right, now is the time to step a bit back and wait what happens. I have enough work to do in real live so that time is welcome. The Banner talk 00:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC) That does not mean that I will stop watching Jax. I will just spend a bit less time on Wikipedia.

Hey Plastik, I know you've been wanting to distance yourself from this but you did exchange private e-mails with Jax on this matter. Do you really think you really got through to him, because based on this I infer that he still feels he didn't do anything wrong as it relates to his topic ban. I understand if you choose to ignore this message. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Again, I will stop doing so in the future, and the things being nominated "were created back in early 2012". --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

So what? When in the best interest of the encyclopaedia, I will nominate templates you have created in 1200 BC! The Banner talk 23:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply - My work has improved substantially since 2012, is now satisfactory, and few of the things I created in 2013 have been deleted. No matter what I do, I can never escape the mistakes I made in the past. NONE of my contributions to education have been deleted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

This is pretty much a dead horse at this point, as far as I am concerned, yet everyone still wants to beat it. Feel free to continue beating it at WP:ANI, since that seems to be the place to go if you like that sort of thing. I, personally, don't feel the need to throw wood on the fire, or beat any horses. If you have any further questions for me on this particular matter, feel free to use my email, which for me appears to be most productive venue at this point. So, I am pronouncing the thread on my talk page as closed. Thanks for the feedback! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

could you userfy template:Tcncv/Geodist and template:Tcncv/Geodist2 (or email me the contents)? I am curious to see the algorithms. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you please explain your decision for closing the discussion for Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 3#Template:Austria squad 2010 UEFA European Under-19 Football Championship and deleting all 140 navbox templates? I didn't see it listed. Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I added a closing statement to the discussion here. If you are concerned about the change in consensus, you might want to open a thread at WT:FOOTY, since it looks like the consensus has changed just over the last year. It would be great if that community could codify some sort of a guideline on where to draw the line concerning which groupings should have a navbox rather than rehashing the debate every time. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying and adding the explanation to the discussion. IMO, a clear concensus was not reached yet in the June 3 discussion and should've been re-listed for additional discussion for such a huge, widespread change. I see you participated in the first discussion cited: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 14#Template:Yugoslavia U21 Squad 1984 whose result was delete due to that particular navbox failing WP:Navbox #2-4; however, that individual discussion is not relevant to ALL of the 140 navbox templates that were deleted as a result of the June 3 discussion. You also closed the second and third discussions cited (both w/ result DELETE) based on the same exact premise. The difference in the June 3 discussion is that there WERE many navboxes that DID meet WP:Navbox # 2-4. If you'd like me to provide a list of some of them, let me know. Hmlarson (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

This particular discussion had above average participation. The typical discussion at TfD can be open for a month with no more than three editors commenting. For this one it looks like we had about nine total, which is definitely above average. Unfortunately, I am the only admin who is actively closing discussions at TfD. As you can see, if I decide to comment on one, then they will stay open for at least a month, which is far longer than recommended. In this particular case, it was advertised at FOOTY, and it was open for about 11 days. There were no comments for six days, so it seemed clear to me that relisting it would have not generated any more comments. As far as the enumerated navbox guidelines, I agree that they seem to be open to interpretation. I don't think any squad template would pass #3, for example. Of course, many will technically pass #2, since all you would need is a listing in an infobox, or in a stats table. So, I assume you are talking about #4, where there is an article just about the youth squad from that particular year? If you have a list of deleted templates that pass criteria #4, please post it somewhere. I am not entirely adverse to reopening discussion for some of them, but I think a healthy thing to do would be for the WP:FOOTY community to decide a clear definition of a notable youth-squad navbox (or really any squad navbox for that matter). I did notice some new mass nominations, but it's hard to see how those will close with any sort of consensus given the broad scope (including non-youth squads, etc.) and the comments made thus far. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's a preliminary list comprised mostly of US men's and women's teams and one England women's squad. Being that I am American and mostly focus my Wiki work on women football players, the list likely represents a small subset of the total articles affected. Most of the women's players articles I've seen or worked on do mention their appearances in international youth tournaments, particularly if they won the championship - so I disagree with you regarding #3 unless you are referring to something else? Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be great if you could upload the list to a subpage of your userpage, here at WP. I am unable to click or cut-and-paste any of the material without installing some Google Drive application. However, I think one of the navboxes you are talking about is the following

I see there is an article on United States men's national under-20 soccer team and there is a section for the United States in 2009 CONCACAF U-20 Championship squads, so that would weakly qualify for #4 (but it is odd that the squad article is not linked in the template?). However, by my reading of #3, I would expect to find discussion of Davies in the article about Johnson. Like I said, I don't imagine any squad templates satisfy #3. Have you started a thread at WT:FOOTY to discuss this issue? Without some centralized discussion, editors will continue to nominate these youth squad templates en mass. I am happy to restore a subset of these templates if that is the outcome of a centralized discussion on the matter, since consensus can change. I would suggest focusing on the ones where there is a squad article for the squads for the particular competition in question. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's the list again: User talk:Hmlarson/June3TfD. I think you may already be aware of some of the previous discussions like 1 and 2 per your 6/3 discussion closing statement. It seems like the mass deletionist would be the one to start a new discussion before making such a drastic change, no? It certainly would save us all a lot of time and work. I will post the same information there to see if another discussion can be started. Hmlarson (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you keep an eye on Protests against the Oresharski cabinet? It seems that I have run into a very passionate protester there. He is clearly not amused by my POV-tag and was already throwing some nasty remarks. Some extra eyes needed to restore peace for all mankind. The Banner talk 23:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Plastikspork, due to page size considerations, an ill thought out reversion of page trimming by the person who's sandbox it is, poor timing on a task carried out by SporkBot, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox encouraging me to undo his reversion which couldn't be done automatically without undoing SporkBot's edit to that sandbox, that sandbox may need to be tested again for new/old IDs. Should I just add it to the category mentioned in the BAG approval for the bot? Thanks for your advice on the matter. Technical 13 (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The category is automatically added when the ((NFT player)) template is used with the deprecated syntax, so no need to add the category manually. If the bot's edits are reverted, the pages just end up back in the tracking category, and the bot tries again when I run it again. So, no problem with reverting the bot either. Thanks for checking! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

could you history merge this with Template:Heads of State of Malawi? thank you. Frietjes (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, no consensus seems a little bit strange to me in a deletion discussion regarding copyright/trademark issues. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to force a different result, but actually I awaited a definite decision here!

Is there some lawyer occupied by WMF who could look into the issue and give us a professional estimate on whether we're save keeping the template or not? Otherwise keeping a template with a copyright status we're not sure about (nothing else is a "no consensus" result in this case) seems risky at best to me. --Patrick87 (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion had died and there was no consensus on whether or not this was a copyright/trademark issue. The only self-proclaimed lawyer admitted no professional knowledge of the subject. I don't think you are going to get any real decision from a group of random editors off the Internet. I would suggest pinging Newyorkbrad and/or Jimbo to see if they can point you in the right direction. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox archaeological site has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

could you have your bot update these as well? Frietjes (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

and could you make the template format them as citations when accessdate is used to avoid this? Frietjes (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I updated the template. I will look into updating the non-templated versions when I have a chance. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

looks like there are even more, see here. all of these are simply deadlinks. I have no idea how long they have been non-functional. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

could you history merge template:PhilaCnty1854 with template:Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania ? edit history indicates that it was a fork which is now redirected. Frietjes (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does look like a fork, but of a different template? Let me know if I am wrong here. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I have an edit request on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Year_in_other_calendars. Could you take a look at it? Thanks --Daniel the duck (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

((Infobox Indian jurisdiction)) was marked (by another editor) as 'being deleted' in August 2011. Could you take a look, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion is here, and the template is in the holding cell at TfD. The transclusion counter says it still has over 7000 transclusions, so I don't think I can delete it yet. What do you want me to do? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what needs doing. Is the holdup just the backlog of conversion of transclusions, or does something need to be done to ((Infobox settlement)) first? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

when can I tell when abuser is a admin or not? Thompson1234 (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I replaced it in articles, so it can now be moved. Frietjes (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The German infoboxes for Austrian place need replacing with English. The Swiss infobox continues to do my head in. I was considering taking it to TFD as I don't see why Switzerland is so special it needs its own template. I'm going to put the Swiss and German infoboxes up I think. Can you put Template:Infobox Swiss town and Template:Infobox German location up for deletion on my behalf, only an admin can edit them and paste the TFD template. State with the German one a wrapper template or at least a removal of the blue blocks in favour of standard might be more constructive.. Tons of them are in German with German text which makes editing them difficult.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I would rather not nominate them for deletion. I could see refactoring them or adding alternative syntax, but there seems to be significant benefit in using the population/area database templates to keep the population and area figures in sync. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Only just seen this; I TfDd the Swiss infobox a couple of days ago. I'd be happy for the outcome to be for them to be refactored as wrappers of ((Infobox settlement)). The database issue will become moot once Wikidata is fully on-stream, and the processing is devolved to that project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you add a standard infobox to the Paris article, it's about to be GA reviewed.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Last time I checked, ((Infobox French commune)) was a standard infobox, with over 35,000 transclusions. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

So is Infobox UK place standard for the UK. Doesn't stop cities like London and Manchester having standard.. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see my proposal to rename Category:Swimming events at the 2005 Maccabiah Games to Category:Swimming at the 2005 Maccabiah Games, likewise Category:Swimming events at the 2009 Maccabiah Games Hugo999 (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you updated Template:Infobox Kibbutz here. I don't know the background to the changes (and I wasn't aware of the TfD) but I see that it hardcodes subdivision_name = Israel. The template is used quite extensively for Israeli settlements outside of Israel i.e. beyond the green line in the Israeli occupied territories. Country=Israel for settlements outside of Israel has raised some eyebrows as you can imagine. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Israeli_settlement_infobox_inaccuracy_problem for example. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like this has been sorted out. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

can you fix the cut-and-paste move of Boguslav to Bohuslav? thank you. Frietjes (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

see this thread. Frietjes (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Impressive! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Plastikspork, I closed the football squad navbox TfD you requested closure on. I hadn't seen the ANRFC posting; I just noticed it when I was mentioned there just now. Anyway, I spent way too much time removing red links from all those articles after that. You mentioned you have a bot to do that sort of work. Does it run automatically, or does it need prompting of some sort? --BDD (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I provide it with a list of templates to orphan, and it does the rest. If I see the templates in WP:TFD/H, I will check the discussion closure, then fire up the bot. Or, if someone points me to a closed discussion, I will start the bot. I will have the bot run through the list for that discussion to see if there are any left. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I have created Category:Infobox wrapper templates. Please feel free to make use of it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Just looking at ((Infobox Canada electoral district)); do you think it could be made a wrapper for ((Infobox constituency))? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Not very easily. That would require adding quite a few new parameters to the constituency template as far as I can tell. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm Emmette, from the county navbox TFD. Could you add the option to use a custom header parameter to Template:US county navigation box? There are a few situation I've found where this could be useful: ((Nantucket County, Massachusetts)) could use an Hawaii "Island" style header. There are some county templates I created such as ((Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania)) where the county link goes through a redirect in volition of WP:BRINT (it was necessary to say "City and County of" in the header to avoid confusion); for ((Orleans Parish, Louisiana)) (which I created) "Municipalities and communities" probably isn't the best header to use. ((Hawaii County, Hawaii)) also links to the Hawaii County, Hawaii redirect, instead of the county article, which is Hawaii (island).

Also could you add an option for the county seat to link to "[City]" rather then [City, State]". For counties such as ((Honolulu County, Hawaii)), where the county seat's article title is just the city name (in this case Honolulu) rather then "City, State", it will link to the "City, State" redirect (in this case Honolulu, Hawaii) in volition of WP:BRINT. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Emmette, I think I understand. Would it be enough to have a parameter to change the count and seat links, but keep the display text the same? In other words, you would say |county_link=Nantucket for the Nantucket example and |seat_link=Honolulu for the Honolulu example? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The seat link parameter would fix the seat link problem, but the county link parameter alone wouldn't fix the all the header problems. For example ((Orleans Parish, Louisiana)) states "Municipalities and communities of Orleans Parish/New Orleans, Louisiana", when it would be better if it stated "Wards and neighborhoods of Orleans Parish/New Orleans, Louisiana". ((Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania))'s header is makes the word "the" in "the City and County of Philadelphia", and it shouldn't make "the" part of the link.

Also some city-county navboxes such as ((Neighborhoods of San Francisco)) and ((Neighborhoods of Denver)) don't use ((US county navigation box)). They could probably use the map of the county within the state that ((US county navigation box)) provides, but the weakness of using ((US county navigation box)) in those cases is that it would require the ideal header "Neighborhoods of X" header be replaced by the poorly fitting "Municipalities and communities of X" header. A custom header parameter would eliminate that weakness.

To be clear, the overwhelming majority of county navboxes would have no need for a custom header, it's use would be rare. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Emmette, I have added three new parameters, and removed some spurious div tags that were causing spacing problems when used with an embedded subgroup. Hopefully these changes are not controversial. Let me know if there are any problems. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The heading parameter was deemed controversial, you should join the discussion on the talk page. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The keep arguments at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 5#Template:Infobox historic subdivision seem very week; the template is used on non-UK articles (e.g. Barony of Chalandritsa in Greece) and ((Infobox settlement)) already has |extinct_date=, which I unfortunately missed at the time. I'm not sure how to proceed. Would you be minded to reopen and relist? Should I renominate? Should we improve ((Infobox settlement)) first? Or just IHS it a wrapper? Or something else? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest either (a) waiting a bit before renominating it, or (b) try to turn it into a wrapper using the sandbox, or both. You have already listed dozens of these templates, and in many cases, there are objections due to the lack of demonstrated redundancy. Renominating it with sample conversions or with a demonstration wrapper would help alleviate concerns about redundancy. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Plastikspork,

Due to recent changes which you were involved in, a number of issues have arisen with ((Infobox Israel municipality)) and ((Infobox Israel village)). Please have a look here and here.

Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you help me discuss this navbox here. Banhtrung1 (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking, but it looks like you nominated the same template twice. I closed the discussion with no comments. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

could you history merge Template:Frozen beverages into Template:Ice-based beverages and desserts? thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks once again for all your hard work and drudgery cleaning up after my, and others', TfD nominations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 06:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Question: should I be using Template:Infobox cape for capes, e.g., Cape Irizaki, or Template:Infobox landform? It looks like the discussion ended on a merger, but I'm not sure which to use in the meantime. Thanks tremendously for your work. Prburley (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to continue using Template:Infobox cape until the merger actually happens. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Two thoughts. Should we add the dual timezone code to ((Infobox settlement)); and should we then make ((Infobox U.S. county)) a wrapper for it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Why would I add the dual timezone code to ((Infobox settlement))? Is there something wrong with the code in there already? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realise it was already there. In that case, my second question applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Should work. You should create a version in the sandbox, and start a thread on the talk page. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join Commons:Commons:WikiProject BSicon‎. Useddenim (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey! Can you use your bot to rename in 2610 pages where there is Template:Infobox NBA biography into Template:Infobox basketball biography? The first one is long time ago moved to another one, but there are still these articles that have it. According to JARRY1250'S TOOLSERVER TOOLS the first one has 2610 transclusions, and the second one has 6754 transclusions as of now. AirWolf (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is this necessary? WP:NOTBROKEN? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

They have been opened for over 2 weeks. Why don't you close them? Banhtrung1 (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Hopefully some more admins will help. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Not that it really matters, as it effectively has the same outcome, but I was just wondering why this discussion was marked as "no consensus" when there were three keep !votes and none to delete. Cheers, Number 57 11:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you forgot Andy's comments, which would make it 3 to 1, in a discussion that isn't a vote. In any case, the final request was for Andy to clearly demonstrate the redundancy. Since in the end it was not clear if template is redundant or not, I decided to close it as "no consensus". Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Could I trouble you to close Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 18#Template:Cite album-notes ASAP,please? It seems non-contentious. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:Infobox station#Adjustments requested, if the requested changes are refused, I'll be lodging a deletion review. Bidgee (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks very reasonable. No need for a deletion review if these changes are refused. If that happens, I will simply change the decision myself. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

per User:Sw2nd's suggestion on my talk page. As you will be doing it by a bot, could you please add NSW TrainLink (country and intercity stations [e.g. Moss Vale]) and Sydney Trains (e.g. Liverpool) and the owner and operator (similar to the styles). NSW TrainLink example and Sydney Trains example. Also cityrail.info links need to be sydneytrains.info. Bidgee (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the examples, I should have time to run the bot within the next couple days. I will be sure to check with you to make sure everything is converted properly. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

All the stations articles using Template:CountryLink Station alt have been done Special:WhatLinksHere. Bidgee (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Great. I have been very busy lately, and haven't had a chance to look at this. Thanks for all the hard work! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to inform you that ((Infobox outlying territory)) has been replaced at all articles it was transcluded in. It is now safe to be deleted.  thayts t  12:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Great! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

At the TFD for ((Infobox former municipality Japan)), you noted that the discussion concluded that we should get rid of this infobox once migration was done and once we got to the point that we wouldn't lose any information. Have we gotten to that point? Frietjes tagged the infobox for deletion, but I declined it because I wasn't sure if we'd gotten to that point; if we have, I'll happily do the deleting. Nyttend (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you take a look at, and debug this please? Apologies for my ineptitude. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No worries; @Frietjes: fixed that, and did a great job converting it to ((Infobox)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Great! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for closing the deletion discussion. I have now replaced all transclusions of the the template (except for the test cases), so if you wish to actually delete the template, please go ahead. —hike395 (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Plastikspork. User Frietjes is no more responding to the discussion and he/she seems to not going to make any consensus with me about the template. Can you please somehow have your word in the discussion or have others involved? As user Frietjes is saying that the template which I've improved and updated is non-standard and is not acceptable for country templates but there are examples and cases where such templates seem to no one has any problems with. Hope to hear you in the talk page of the History of Georgia template. Thanks. georgianJORJADZE 15:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Will respond there. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I've orphaned ((Infobox fictional organisation)), which has four transclusions. Please can you delete it and move ((Infobox fictional secret organisation)), into which I merged the extra parameters, over it? I assume that doesn't need a TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like this has been resolved. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty working out how you determined consensus at the TfD for ((Infobox Papua New Guinea place)). There were four editors opposed to deletion. Of the delete votes, two were simply WP:PERNOM votes, and provided no rationale for the votes. Another was "no reason to keep two templates when one will do", which really isn't convincing, especially when your close is essentially the opposite of that - to use two (or three) templates instead of one. The vote by Tusslemon raises a red flag. This is an editor whose previous history at Wikipedia was limited to 10 edits in 2011 with no demonstrated involvement with templates - He came out of retirement just to vote in a TfD which is peculiar. His vote "redundant to a better designed template" is a personal opinion, not a valid rationale. The remaining four votes provided some rationale, but with effectively a 50:50 split, I don't see a consensus either way. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I see you opened a DRV. I will comment there if I have anything to add to the discussion. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bhilai power house railway station.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! APerson (talk!) 21:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

One of your TfD closures has appeared at deletion review. All the best—S Marshall T/C 23:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will watch the discussion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

As you can see from the recent history of ((Infobox gymnast)), I'm having some bother with template code again. I added a gender parameter, which originally displayed correctly for both male and female examples in the documentation, Now it's only displaying for males. I also tried, without success, to add conditional parentheses. Can you assist, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Once again, @Frietjes: is too quick for us! Thank you, both. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Great! Thanks to both of you for working it out. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Infobox Papua New Guinea place. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. AussieLegend (✉) 05:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Will watch the discussion. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

A new template, FYI: ((Convert to use Infobox settlement)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

glad to see you are back. could you (or someone who watches this page) have a look at the edit warring on template:Heads of State of Malta? I don't plan to revert the last edit to avoid edit warring myself, but given that there are two editors agreeing to the removal of the coat of arms icons, and one against the removal, seems they should be removed. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

thank you. Frietjes (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not seeing how you came to a no consensus result for this discussion [7]. It seems to me that the discussion was easily weighted in favor of the "oppose" statements. I request that you review this discussion and decision. Perhaps you can provide a rationale for your decision. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Likewise, I am equally astonished. There is resounding agreement that the two infoboxes should kept distinct. The !votes were 10-1 in opposition of a merge.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems you didn't count the nominator? As you are aware, it's not a vote. I don't count votes. I found Hippo99's analysis to be very helpful for showing that there are clear differences between the templates. As far as I am concerned, the only reason for having a merger discussion at TfD is to have a central location for the discussion. Otherwise, there is really no reason why the discussion cannot be conducted on the talk page for the template. These are discussions, not votes. Thanks for the comments, thanks for the corrections [8][9][10]! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The point is claiming there is no consensus on the question of whether or not the ((infobox journal)) and ((infobox magazine)) should be merged is misleading at best, and disingenuous at worse. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you placed a diff to a remark I made on my talk page. If it was to somehow suggest that I agree with or otherwise support your closure of this TfD, you are mistaken. "I can live with it" just means that and nothing more. Given the huge opposition against this merge proposal, supported by solid arguments from people who actually use these templates, with as counter argument basically only "it can be done so it should be done", I obviously was as baffled as Steve Quinn and Headbomb about your suprising "no concensus" closure. Consensus, may I remind you, does not mean "unanimity" and I think that the discussion clearly showed that merging was a really bad idea. You seem to say so yourself above in your remark about Hippo99 showing the clear differences between the two infoboxes. If this is not a vote, and only 2 editors using flawed reasoning oppose 10 editors giving reasons that you think are stronger, then how can this ever be a "no consensus"? --Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thank you for your tireless contributions, responding to my endless requests, and dealing with the complaints. You are one of only a couple admins who is currently closing discussions at WP:TfD, and I have no idea how big the backlog would be without your help. All the best. Frietjes (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to thank you for administering the TfD for ga.legis in a thoroughly fair manner. I could not have asked for more than that. Cheers. :) John Cline (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey Plasticspork. I'd like to ask for the restoral of Template:Db-banned-notice-NPF, which you deleted after this discussion, for a couple of reasons:

1. In terms of community discussion - a single delete vote doesn't, to me, consensus make, particularly since TfD is a fairly low-traffic area: I would've suggested relisting rather than closing. What we're talking about here is a template used by a piece of software a lot of page patrollers are dependent on, so removing it based on a single (well, two) comment seems rather disproportionate.
2. More practically speaking, the delete vote itself was "delete after removing the template from Special:NewPagesFeed"; a conditional deletion. That removal hasn't been done, and it's a software change, effectively, so a request needs to be made (and acted on) before it's possible. Until it is actively removed from the software, which may take some time, a piece of MediaWiki is effectively broken and unusable. Ironholds (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I relisted it on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 31. It seems like a pretty bad software design if it is broken that easily. I would think the software would check to see if the template exists before trying to substitute it. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, even if it did that you're still left with broken functionality ;p. It's the inevitable result of having to build software-based workflows around community-modifiable elements. Ironholds (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, either the messages should be integrated into the software, or the software should be smart enough to generate options based on which messages exist. It's simply a bad design, and there is apparently no software documentation linked from the templates. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The "making it smart enough" is coming, actually, in a form that will be widely applicable - with incorporating the messages into the software you're asking for the community to not be able to modify them reasonably. Ironholds (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the community is not (currently) able to reasonably modify the software. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought this was supposed to be deleted as redundant to infobox building long ago? The new mint colour looks minging. Can somebody ensure that infobox building has all the necessary parameters and then replace and delete?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

could you history merge Template:Infobox South African town with Template:Infobox South African town 2011? Frietjes (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Plastikspork. I see you deleted Paul Newton (disambiguation); could you please restore it because even before I consider that it was a proposed deletion which I am now contesting, there are four notable Paul Newtons which is more than enough? Thank you.--Launchballer 21:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Who are the four? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The three already there plus Paul Newton (DJ), a member of Neve (British band).--Launchballer 08:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Match in progress, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template talk:Match in progress and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template talk:Match in progress during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Blethering Scot 17:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the votes, I don't think no consensus was right for this one. Also there's some with 2 deletes and 1 keep !votes you deleted (e.g. Template:Asia–Europe Foundation partners), but others you haven't (Template:Community of Portuguese Language Countries). Thanks, — Lfdder (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

this is also a particularly bad one. 3 deletes and 3 merges and the template is kept? — Lfdder (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) They look like no consensus to me... It's not just about votes and it's not a clear line of keep or delete... Three delete votes with valid reasons and three merge (which means the information needs to be kept) with valid reasonings = is it merged or deleted? 50/50 split is no consensus so it is kept as is until a consensus can be met at a future nomination. The guidelines for re-nomination suggest at the very least waiting three months but suggests that six months may be better. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Why would it not be relisted if there's no consensus? If it's relisted and 7 or how many more days pass and the people involved can't agree, then fair enough. — Lfdder (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
    • It wasn't relisted because the nominator choose to group it in with a bunch of other templates that were nominated in one shot instead of separately... That was the nominator's error in judgment, not the editor who closed the discussion. Technical 13 (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
      • They were split shortly after they were nominated. They were put under the same heading for coherence/convenience; they were very much independent nominations and could've been relisted individually. — Lfdder (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Also, Tfd's from previous days of similar navboxes are still open, so what was the rush to close these en masse? — Lfdder (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
        • I've offered you what I can as a non-administrator stalker of this talk page. You apparently have a BATTLEGROUND complex going on at the moment, and I can assure you that you will not "WIN" whatever you think there is to be won. If that template bothers you, wait three to six months and renominate it separately. Good luck! Technical 13 (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
          • I've no idea what you're talking about. There's nothing wrong with asking people to explain things (within reason), and it's not like closing a discussion is irreversible (see above). — Lfdder (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
            • and there is nothing that prevents you from renominating templates which were closed as 'no consensus'. you don't even need to wait 6 months, you can do it right now. Frietjes (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
              • I've seen people get crucified for doing that. — Lfdder (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
              • It'd also be a waste of people's time when there's better ways to go about it. — Lfdder (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I have merged the G8 and G8+5 templates because the closure was clearly wrong. There wasn't a single vote in favour of keeping it, so a no-consensus keep couldn't have been the right outcome. The cases where the lack of consensus was debatable should be renominated in due time.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have undone this as WP:NOCONSENSUS says, "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept." and WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 30#Template:G8+5 closed 2 merge, 1 delete, 1 neutral = no consensus. Technical 13 (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

sigh — Lfdder (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

where did you see neutral? — Lfdder (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

"Either merge or delete it, depending on the outcome of the Template:G8 nations nomination.--eh bien mon prince (talk)" does not specify what was wanted depending on either outcome. Therefor, the discussion was closed as no consensus because 2/1/1 does not a consensus make. An editor can't assume everyone knows what they are thinking and needs to be clear. If that wasn't what you meant, or you want to improve your clarity, renominate or bring it up at WP:DRV. Discussing here on the poor closer's talk page is inappropriate. Please follow consensus and take the proper next step. I don't want to elevate this to WP:DRN or WP:AN/I if that fails, but I will if need be. Either way, please do not discuss it here further, move it to Template talk:G8+5 please and thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I know what WP:NOCONSENSUS says, but there was clear consensus for merging in this case, and the closure, along with a couple others in the same group of nominations, was clearly wrong. It was 3 in favour of merging and one for deleting, and I imagine the latter would have preferred to see it merged than kept (but we can ask him that, of course).--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Major non-NATO ally is another case where the consensus was clearly against keeping it as it was. Of seven users who gave their opinion, there wasn't even one who said it should be kept.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

by my reading, I believe 'no consensus' here was "no consensus to delete", not no consensus to make any modifications to the templates, which would include merging. Frietjes (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, this really blew up, not sure why this had to go to DRN so quickly. As you know there were dozens of templates with sub-discussions, and the overall backlog at WP:TFD. The ones that I closed as no consensus, were ones where there was no consensus to simply delete the template. In the case of the G8+5 template, I agree that I should have closed that one as merge. I will amend my closing statement. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

that's an easy one, it didn't have to go to DRN. Thanks. — Lfdder (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I will look at the others (e.g., Template:Community of Portuguese Language Countries) in a bit, but I have to log off right now. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• I object to this on the grounds that there was no clear consensus to merge. There were 2 merge votes, 2 delete votes, a indeterminably vote, which means it should have been relisted or closed no consensus. Had it been relisted, my vote would have been to keep as there is no need to have that fluff in the primary template as it distracts from the primary links. Had it been closed no consensus (as it was), then it should have been kept until renominated. Technical 13 (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

it looks like this one fell through the cracks, I will remove the tfd template. Frietjes (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

and Template:Dutch Language Union Frietjes (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for fixing those! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I saw this on my watchlist, run by your bot but I don't get it. There's no completed TfD discussion at the provided link, no mention of the cs or cz templates, and apparently no reason to change "cs" to "cz" as cs is actually the code for Czech language, and the template is a language one and not connected to the TLD. Thoughts? Thanks, C679 09:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

(tps) I agree, and made a request to move the template at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Frietjes (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! The list was generated from redirects to the icon templates. That one was a mistake. I will have the bot correct it. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks both. C679 01:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Template talk:G8+5#TfD result discussion". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Technical 13 (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Plastikspork. User talk:Mpejkrm recently created Category:2013 NCAA Division I FBS football season navigational boxes and all of its contained football conference navboxes. However, he did so without knowing that this previous TfD discussion had near-unanimous consensus to get rid of such navboxes and categories. Can you just speedily delete these without a formal TfD being opened? It'd be a waste of time for all of us to have to re-hash the same exact argument all over again because somebody didn't know about a previous consensus. Thank you! Jrcla2 (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I will take care of them in a bit. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I was just wondering if these were all going to be deleted soon? Thanks! Jrcla2 (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the reminder. I was waiting for the bot to finish removing them, but the bot crashed. Everything is taken care of now. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I have a question for you as I have notice that you have "Closed" several "Templates for discussion" sections. I am simply trying to understand the process a little better, so I hope you don't mind. This is not a complaint at all. I have two mergers listed (here and here that seem to have a clear consnsus for merger. It's been 7 days, and I would like to move forward. What is the process to do that. The page isn't clear who can close the discussion or how long you have to wait or anything.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Artest4echo, I'm no expert myself but generally deletion discussions can only be closed by administrators (you can read more about the process at WP:Deletion_process). Seven days is about the minimum duration of a TfD and discussions lasting for a month are not unusual, so it might be too early to close those two.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Plastikspork. A discussion about Infobox Swiss town was closed as 'no consensus' though it was noted that there were few objections to turning it into a wrapper for Infobox settlement, and that the conversion could be discussed on the talk page. A first discussion about this conversion was started on 10 July, though it died almost immediately it was revived around mid-August and the Swiss WikiProject was notified, but it never involved more than 4 people; I tried to start an RfC at Template talk:Infobox Swiss town in late August but again it didn't go much beyond the same 4 editors and it has stalled for about two weeks. Do you think it would be appropriate to discuss the template again at TfD, three months later, or is it too soon for that?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to renominate any "no consensus" template whenever you want. I have a feeling you will get the same knee-jerk reaction if you do so so quickly. I, personally, don't see most TfDs getting more than a few editors commenting, so the discussion is going to be dominated by those within the particular WikiProject associated with the template. You could try to invite comment from a broader group of people, outside of the Swiss WikiProject. I'm not sure if you need to elevate it to the level of an RfC, but something broader would probably be helpful. Waiting a bit is never a bad idea if the problem isn't urgent, since it frequently allows people to think more clearly in retrospect, rather than accusing you of "forum shopping" or "renominating until you get the result that you want". Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice!--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi PS, There are some bugs in the above script that are noted by various users on the talk page, but this one, possibly because of the newness of the Gallery function, seems to be in need of an urgent fix. You may be aware that GregU hasn't edited in some time. Can you help by adding protection to <gallery>[contents]</gallery>? Thanks, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Added, let me know if it works, or if it doesn't work, or if I did something completely boneheaded. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems to now avoid galleries, which it didn't before your fix. And good news that the script works still... Thanks, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 16:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for merging HPC row and HPC rowt. However, I think you may have overlooked a silently problematic thing. In HPC rowt, the "longd" value was expressed as a positive number, and the template forced a sign change; in HPC row, the "lon" value was expressed as a number, and was not altered. Thus, the longitude 68.8742 west would be expressed as "68.8742" when using HPC rowt, and "-68.8742" when using HPC row. Without accounting for this, merely redirecting from one to the other will result in things being mismapped. If my template-fu was better I'd look at fixing this, but I'd rather leave it to someone more experienced. Magic♪piano 21:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Negative degrees with "W" will trip an error, but I will make them function the same as before the merge. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I left a reply at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_14#Template:Derive

Best wishes.Si Trew (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I noticed you closed the template for deletion for Template: Cashis, due to me missing the discussion, could you move the content of last version of it at the bottom of User:STATicVerseatide/Navboxes for creation, so I may recreate once it has the five links needed to pass WP:ANEW. Thank you, STATic message me! 03:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Spork (curious name you have!), and sorry if I seem to be spamming your talk page lately. When you closed the TfD for Infobox French commune there was also the question of whether it should be substituted for the communes of overseas France. Was there consensus for (or against) that? Or will it have to be discussed in the talk page in the next few months (I hope not)?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I didn't see any objections to that suggestion, so I would say be bold and "go for it" and see what happens. It looks like the total number of overseas France communes are small enough that doing so would not be a massive undertaking, and could be rolled back if there is substantial outcry. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a really bad idea, because remember that en-wiki accepts files directly from Commons that are out of copyright in America - and thus acceptable here - but not in their home country, making them unacceptable on Commons. No matter if you replace it or not, there will always be new uses of ((en)) coming in through this process.

Similarly, ((PD-US-1923-abroad)) takes a parameter for when it should be moved to commons. ((lang-en)) doesn't exist there, screwing up moves of "fixed" templates every January when they move back.

Finally, ((lang-en)) is a change in content, from a bolded English: to an unbolded English: It changes a widely accepted convention for image pages with an inappropriate and confusing one.

As such, this seems a recipe for disaster. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

so your issue is only with the file namespace? seems like a reasonable compromise would be to restrict the use of ((en)) to the file namespace. Frietjes (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That does seem reasonable. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's go with that option. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

What about all the other languages there wasn't any such template for? What's special about ((en)) (other than it's probably more widely used)? Maybe I'm not fully understanding the issue. — Lfdder (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe the issue is that images are frequently moved back-and-forth from commons, and this causes problems if ((en)) and ((lang-en)) don't do the same thing. While I was going through the transclusions of ((en)), I found that over half of them were in File space, so this looks like it could be a substantial issue going forward. The least problematic solution seems to be to redirect the two-letter templates to the ((lang-xx)) equivalents, since this would make things work roughly the same here and on commons. Using a ((lang-xx)) template on a file which is moved to commons then causes problems at commons if the ((lang-xx)) template does not exist there. Of course, this is mostly a problem with ((en)), since that's the most widely used one in File space. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox census data has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Why did you close it as no consensus? There was only a very small and vocal opposition despite the fact that the template was at TFD two years ago and it was intended to be deleted until some software change which has never happened. I think the close should be reconsidered.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I reread the discussion and still feel there is no consensus. It looks like the entire objection to the template is that adding it prevents the page from being moved back, but that a change to the software would solve the problem. This was the conclusion from the last TfD, and I would say it is still the case today. I will append this to my closure. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

could you history merge Template:Quranic people into Template:Characters and names in the Quran ? appears to be a cut-and-paste move/expansion. Frietjes (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep, it's all merged. I just happened to check in on everything right after you closed the discussion and put the merge notices on the templates, so since it was my proposal I just took care of it. Thanks! 68.33.142.75 (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I hope you understand that you are destroying years worth of work based on the opinion of you and three other people. This was not well-enough advertised to implement: I would have fiercely opposed it. Doc talk 01:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you asking me to relist the discussion? If so, just ask. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do. Sorry if my tone is harsh, but this definitely needs wider input. Doc talk 01:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Will do shortly. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

And here is the list of the bot edits. I will certainly roll them back if the relisted discussion closes as keep. But, I may just roll them back anyway to avoid edit conflicts. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Again, sorry for the tone but I was very alarmed when I saw what was happening. You were just doing your job, and there are certainly no hard feelings. Cheers :) Doc talk 03:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

A very big Like! This matter involves the actual deletion of widely used templates and would involve the deletion/disuse of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets. That's pretty serious business and would seriously hamper the good faith efforts of sock/vandal hunters who are seeking to protect the encyclopedia. False positives and misuse can occur, but deleting these things is not the solution. To illustrate (no actual figures), we don't spite the 90% good tags to prevent false positives on 10%. Note that, with rare exception, those who get blocked deserve the blocks. Even if not, the IP block is very short. There are certain editors (User:GregJackP and his inspirator, User:174.118.141.197, a likely IP sock of a banned editor) who are nominating lots of these categories for deletion, and are emptying the categories without waiting for the deletion discussion to conclude. That's wrong procedure and also a serious destruction of evidence and should be stopped. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this, I'm wondering why you deleted the infobox and removed it from all the articles (save one) that it had been added to. The articles that User:COGDEN added it to were improved by its addition, and there was no reason to remove it. Is there some unwritten rule somewhere saying that infoboxes can't be transcluded into articles? If so, what is the rationale behind this? ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

@Adjwilley: there have been numerous discussions about this sort of thing, and the general consensus is that an infobox only belongs in one article. If you check the transclusions in template space, you will find only one out of approximately 50 transclusions in articles. Hence, this is not standard practice. A sidebar, however, is a different situation. I would suggest creating a sidebar for connecting the articles where it was added during the discussion, but those articles are already very well connected by the LDS affiliation navigational box at the foot of the articles. By the way, the infobox was not deleted, it was merged with the parent article. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the sidebar concept. Would I go about that by creating Template:Mormons sidebar or something like that? I'll be honest, my main concern is what the article looks like to new editors. If you were a new editor who had just clicked "edit" for the first time, which of the following would you prefer to see? this, or this? Having the wall of code invites vandalism like this and makes it really easy for newbies to break stuff like this. (The vandalism's gone, but so is the group...These diffs are from about 5 minutes ago, incidentally.) Anyway, I'd like to get this transcluded again, soon, in a more "legal" way this time, so I'd welcome any advice on how to do that. I'd also like to add it back to the other articles COGDEN added it to, as I really do think it was an improvement there, since many of those articles didn't have pictures at all, and the template had a nice cross section of people. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

@Adjwilley: Yes, a sidebar would use ((sidebar)) and be housed at ((Mormonism topics)) or ((Mormonism)) or something similar. See for example, Template:Roman Catholicism. The view in the visual editor is actually quite different, and a new editor would be perplexed as to how to edit what is in the infobox. If you are having problems with vandalism, you should request to have the page semiprotected at WP:RPP. A good way to add images to articles is to create a composite representative image, or to change LDS affiliation to a sidebar with a composite image, or an image array. However, I would caution that adding all of those images to say Less-active Mormon is not appropriate, since not all Mormons are less-active. Similar with the other articles, which is why adding the generic Mormon infobox to those articles was not really appropriate. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Plastikspork, I'm User:Kevjonesin. Thank you for closing the Template:Infobox Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar removal discussion and then as per discussion deleting 'Template:Infobox Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar' and it's talk page. I appreciate your contribution.

However, as shown in the deletion log, a page was also removed from my personal user space.

• 22:33, 30 September 2013 Plastikspork (talk | contribs) deleted pageUser:Kevjonesin/Template:Infobox Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page) [11]

I understand/assume you were just trying to be thorough and likely meant well. But I imagine one can see — perhaps after a few moments of reflection — how unannounced deletion of a page from another editors user space might seem a bit intrusive and presumptive. In the future please consult with me before initiating such changes to my user space.

At the risk of 'splitting hairs', I'll also mention that citing G8 might be a bit technically amiss in this case. The version in my user space pre-dated the one in main template space. It was my draft/sandbox before publication. So technically the main 'Template:Infobox Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar' version arose from 'User:Kevjonesin/Template:Infobox Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar', not vice versa. But that's not really what I consider the salient point. In fact, if you're one of the few who doesn't actually require points of WikiLaw in order to pay attention, please pardon me for being tedious and mentioning it at all.

The key point is that I would have liked to have been allowed the opportunity to review the page myself to see if there was anything I wished to salvage from it before it was deleted — or to weigh in on whether I wished to have the page removed from my user space at all.

Once again, Plastikspork, I appreciate your help in implementing the group consensus of the template deletion discussion itself.

Thanks for your time and attention,

--Kevjonesin (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I restored the broken redirect. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL, was that all it was? Apparently I 'moved' my original draft to main template space when it was finished, rather than copying it. Now it makes sense — to me — to have removed it.

In retrospect, a courtesy note on my talk page — explaining 'what-and-why' — likely would have sufficed to ward off confusion.

Thanks for letting me review the 'page'. I now see how it's currently superfluous. Feel free to delete it now. In fact, please do so.

Plastikspork, thanks again for your time and attention,

--Kevjonesin (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Spork, does Template:Olive (band) as it stands fall under "obvious vandalism"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Assuming you are talking about this, then yes, that would be obvious vandalism, even if it was unintentional. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

There has been a complaint about wikisource links being broken when dashes replace hyphens as parameter in ((cite DNB)). I have checked that the dashes script is indeed responsible for this change. Could I ask you to please protect strings within the template from being attacked by the User:GregU/dashes.js script? Thanks, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 07:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, you have recently closed a discussion on template:Campaignbox Kurdish separatism in Iran with a community consensus to remerge template Template:Campaignbox Kurdish–Iranian conflict into template:Campaignbox Kurdish separatism in Iran. After i implemented the decision, the merge was violated and reverted by user:HistorNE - see revert; HistorNE also used another IP account [12] when implementing edits on the second template. Since HistorNE had participated in the merger discussion and is generally active on the topic i don't see this as WP:GF and i decided to issue a complaint on his disruptive editing and violation of community consensus at WP:ANI.GreyShark (dibra) 17:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) reverted changes per TfD outcome, this should be at WP:DRV if there is a problem with the TfD outcome. Frietjes (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

@Frietjes: HistorNE has already reverted you back - he clearly has no intention to follow community decisions or go to WP:DRV. It's "his way or the hiway".GreyShark (dibra) 14:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that you closed some TfDs as "Delete" here, but you didn'tactually delete them. Don't worry, I speedied them, but you should make sure that you delete them. Hope this helps! buffbills7701 17:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

@Buffbills7701:, see WP:TFD/H. Which ones were missing from the holding cell? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see that. Sorry! buffbills7701 21:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, there is not a volleyball notability guide. I have been working with volleyball and beach volleyball articles from ancient times and is urgently needed. Please check my draft and please please please tell me how can we add this content to Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Osplace 16:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

We would really appreciate your help in this discussion. Thanks, Osplace 02:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

could you history merge template:Presidents of Pakistan into Template:Heads of State of Pakistan? thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

and the same for Template:GambianPresidents, Template:GhanaPresidents, Template:GreekPresidents, Template:GuyanaPresidents, Template:IndianPresidents, Template:KenyaPresidents, Template:MalawiPresidents, Template:MaltesePresidents, Template:MauritiusPres, Template:SAPresidents, Template:Presidents, Sierra Leone, Template:Sri Lanka Heads of State, Template:TandTPresidents, Template:TanzaniaPresidents. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

and the redirects to Template:Beverly Hills franchise . Frietjes (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

and Template:Bg . Frietjes (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Mostly done. It looks like several were already history merged by me earlier, or by another admin. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi can you make the alignment of Småskär centred?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like this was fixed for you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello.

The template Template:Infobox Olympic event category navbox was recently deleted, after having been nominated on 2 October. It was only used in Template:Curling at the Olympic Games category navbox, which itself was unused. You also deleted the second template. I don't mean to be overly formal, but doesn't that template need to be nominated too before it's deleted?

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was WP:CSD#G8, since it was not functioning without the other template. I will restore it to your userspace and you can decide what to do with it. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I wondered if I could persuade you to reconsider closing this discussion. The same discussion applies as to Template:List of Arcade Video Games Navbox where the discussion is ongoing. I did not repeat the discussion in both places to save time etc. I am sorry I did not make this clear. Regards Op47 (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I see. I will watch the other discussion, and if it closes as keep, then I can certainly re-close the "baronetcies in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom" discussion. As you noticed, having them both open at the same time does cause problems since the comments either need to be duplicated, or the discussions should have been merged. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

A file you have been previously involved with is under discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Carlos-Smith.jpg Trackinfo (talk) 09:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hallo, FYI: I saw this – the AFD has not been closed yet [[13]] - the outcome of the TFD from your subeject was "replace uses of ((en)) and ((ar)) with ((en icon)) and ((ar icon))". Christian75 (talk) 10:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

For my learning, is there a reason why you removed ((cop)) from User:Jax 0677/Template:The Andy Griffith Show?

Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

(tps) probably because ((collapsible option)) only applies if there is | state = (({state|))} in the navbox? without it you are passing a value that does nothing, and hence the documentation does not apply. by the way, 'cop' is a very bad name for the redirect, given the name collision with ((lang-cop)). Frietjes (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Frietjes, thanks for your reply. A state should probably have been added instead of deleting ((cop)). In any event, ((cop)) was discussed in great length here. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)