May 2017

Information icon Hello, I'm Petrb. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to User_talk:Petrb— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Petrb (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Petrb, you realize you just undid vandalism on your own talk page, right? Primefac (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry, I see it now, I was doing a showcase on Wikimedia Hackathon in front of some people, so I didn't really have much time looking into the details, probably got confused and reverted wrong edit. Thank you for help! Petrb (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, Primefac. You have new messages at Herostratus's talk page.
Message added 05:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

((Infobox Tour Rugby))

Hi, if and when you get a chance can you look at this template and specifically the alignment of data in columns. When there are more than 9 matches played the alignments seem to go to pot, I guess it's the double digits and padding between columns. The example on the infobox page shows this. Thanks. Nthep (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nthep, not sure what I'm looking at. The "usage" infobox is really wide because the parameters are really wide, and it only takes 8 matches anyway. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I should have been more specific. If you look at Template:Infobox Tour Rugby#Example and the NZ tour details used there. The first row of data reads 35 34 0 1 but the 34 0 1 do not line up with the column headings of W D L in the header row. Nthep (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right, missed that. I'll see what I can do. Primefac (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed. Primefac (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Star man, that's a beer I owe you if we ever meet up. Nthep (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne City FC (W-League)/Template:Melbourne City W-League Current Squad listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Melbourne City FC (W-League)/Template:Melbourne City W-League Current Squad. Since you had some involvement with the Melbourne City FC (W-League)/Template:Melbourne City W-League Current Squad redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pppery 19:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

query re national coverage, reliable, independent...

please check the SMH and numerous (freely accessible) significant reliable sources which are completely independent of the subject... Skinduptruk (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skinduptruk, what's this about? Primefac (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinduptruk (talkcontribs) 11:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Skinduptruk, the issue is not that the sources aren't independent, the issue is that the sources are all pertaining to an election that he did not win. Per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:POLOUTCOMES people who unsuccessfully run for office are not generally considered notable. The "significant independent coverage" that is required for these individuals must be from outside the political sphere to show that they are independently notable from the campaign. Primefac (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Osteopathy

Hi. Trying to get approval for the Institute of Osteopathy page. Hopefully I've removed anything that could be deemed as copyrighted (although I have approval to use). Have little experience of editing wiki pages, so I'm not sure if I'm missing a step or just need to be patient - which is not a problem if so. Happy to fix anything that may be wrong with it. Also, entirely unrelated, I'm a fellow Glasgow grad.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by EGW85 (talkcontribs) 13:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EGW85, the copyvio has been removed, but now you need to add independent reliable sources that can verify the content on the page. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I've added references as best I can at this stage, if these aren't up to scratch then I'll have to do some work with other organisations to ask them to develop sources that can be used - I'm surprised I couldn't find anything better already tbh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EGW85 (talkcontribs) 14:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:10:16, 24 May 2017 review of submission by Dansmo

Hello, we have cleaned up the references per feedback. I'm not sure if the format is correct. Before I clicked to resubmit I thought it I'd ask for some feedback... Please can you take a look and let me know if the additional, independent references, help get this article approved and if the format is okay?

Sorry, haven't had time to look at this. Looks like it's been resubmitted. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - for information, please --Bhadani (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Just saw it in my watchlist and putting here so you know what's going on without having to click the link. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Whitney Lynn & Draft:Morgan Simon

Hi, it has come to my attention that you have put two drafts, Draft:Whitney Lynn & Draft:Morgan Simon, under review and have left them like that. Plum3600 (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plum3600, I don't have any drafts under review. It looks like Winged Blades of Godric and Curb Safe Charmer marked them under review, respectively. If you look at the source code, you'll see the AFC template has a |reviewer= parameter, which lists the reviewer in question. You're welcome to contact these editors individually, but I've pinged them so it might be unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:08:42, 26 May 2017 review of submission by Cogic2

Please help me understand what you were looking for. Also, I looked up several other articles on bishops, and noted that the primary information regarding them was regarding becoming bishops with a little else detailing their notability. Please give clarity as to why a Catholic bishop is considered notable for simply being a bishop but a COGIC Bishop would not be

Cogic2, I invite you to check out WP:CLERGY. While it is true that most bishops are notable because of their status, it is generally for bishops of major religions. Pentecostalist denominations are specifically mentioned as needing significant coverage in third-party sources to be considered notable. You're not far off, to be honest, and it's really just the lack of sourcing. Since there are a few paragraphs that don't have any references, these might be good places to add such sources. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Masslive is the online presence of the Republican Newspaper, a reliable source. Also, even as Catholic bishops with little notability outside the church are deemed notable enough to be included in wikipedia, shouldn't bishops in the largest Pentecostal denomination in nation also be deemed notable for their service in the church?
Please be advised that is the online presence of The Republican Newspaper, part of Newhouse Newspapers. It is the largest newspaper in the region and should be considered a reliable source even as you noted regarding the Valley Advocate, which is a smaller weekly regional paper. Many of the references are attributed to masslive.
Also, please note the significance of the Church Of God In Christ, the largest Pentecostal denomination in the U.S. Even as Catholic bishops are deemed notable simply because the serve a Catholic diocese, shouldn't COGIC bishops be deemed notable for serving jurisdictions in their denomination as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogic2 (talkcontribs) 16:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have started to do some editing and adding additional sources, wanted to know if I'm on the right track. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogic2 (talkcontribs) 02:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cogic2, the issue was not with the sources, but with the coverage given by those sources. A publication by the Church for the Church is going to give announcements regarding the promotion of clergy. While these sources are perfectly acceptable for verifying facts, they don't do much for demonstrating notability. And, as mentioned, WP:CLERGY specifically lists Pentecostals as the exception to the "most clergy are notable" guideline. I see that you've significantly expanded the draft, so it would appear that you've taken the above into consideration. Good luck if/when you resubmit. Primefac (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, just not sure which source you're referring to as a church source covering the church. The main source used prior to recent edits was masslive, which is the online presence of the main newspaper in Western MA and not a church publication. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjones3927 (talkcontribs) 13:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, interesting. I saw "Mass" and thought "church" not "state". My mistake. Still not sure it counts as anything above routine coverage, but the fact that it's not a church publication certainly helps. Primefac (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I understand the confusion. It is specifically, the Springfield Republican Newspaper, which has extensively covered the subject of the article. Is it possible to modify the remarks in your rejection notes so when it is resubmitted, the next reviewer doesn't make the same assumption based on your notes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjones3927 (talkcontribs) 14:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Primefac (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rich unblocked

I've unblocked Rich per reasoning at AN/I. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, can you just confirm that the picture I uploaded of him is okay for Wikipedia? Plum3600 (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Please move List of exoplanets to Lists of exoplanets. I've tagged the redirect for speedy deletion already but I know that's an inefficient way to get the job done. Holy Goo (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Goo, I assume your intention then is to move List of exoplanets (full) to List of exoplanets? Primefac (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. List of exoplanets is a list of lists. The name has to be in the plural form. Holy Goo (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So then you're not going to move the full list to list of exoplanets?
And, to further the question, why wouldn't we then move List of minor planets to Lists of minor planets? It's the same thing (generally speaking). Primefac (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not, and I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.
And yes. In theory, list of minor planets should be moved as well, since it is not a list, but rather, a list of lists. Holy Goo (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Goo, not sure if a discussion at WT:AST would suffice or if it should be listed as a proper RM, but I think a discussion should take place as to where everything should end up. I don't seem much reason to move the list but not the full list. Primefac (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The full list doesn't have to be moved because it is in fact a list, not a list of lists. Holy Goo (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it's a transclusion of lists, but I was specifically thinking that if we move List of exoplanets to Lists of exoplanets, then we should follow that up with moving List of exoplanets (full) to List of exoplanets because of the unnecessary disambiguator. Again, I think we're getting into the realm of needing more input from other editors, because I'm not convinced anything needs to be moved. Primefac (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeBot is AWESOME

Seriously - I *love* this edit at George Washington. When I first looked at it I was puzzled but then I realized it stripped out that UTM crap. I'm always stripping out extraneous code from URLs - like the unneeded search-term code left over after I've searched within a Google Book. Thank you so much - when you see your bot tell it thanks for me. Shearonink (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion of Draft:Isik Abla

Hi, Primefac. I contested the SD of Draft:Isik Alba, so I don't think you were supposed to delete it. Could you restore it, please? :) Newimpartial (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, you contested the copyvio/G12 deletion, and you made a valid point: not everything was a copyright violation. However, when I went to check the rest of the content, I found it was purely promotional, with phrases like Due to her desire to spread the Gospel on a wider scale and to ignite the fire for revival in the church... and Her message of hope, love and redemption, found only in a loving God, resonates and continues.... There were no references, and really not much in the way of usable information. In cases like these, it's better to start from scratch with good references. Primefac (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But I am not sure that you are grasping the whole context here: this was a recently rejected AfC submission, and the rejection was not made on the grounds of copyright violation. In that context, a SD for WP:COPYVIO goes against WP:BITE and the purposes of the project, I believe. All I am asking is for the delete to be reverted, and then it could go through the more appropriate process, MfD, if needed. Newimpartial (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fix?Newimpartial (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll get right on undeleting the article so that we can waste everyone's time at MFD and delete the article. Sounds lovely. I've checked through a few of your XFD conversations (and your talk page), and it's clear that I'm not going to convince you that I know what I'm doing. Personally, I think you should leave speedy deletions to the admins, because it's part of our job to determine if the CSD tags are placed correctly, but unless you start being disruptive about it I have no call to stop you. Primefac (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, except that the admin in question had just placed four incorrect SD tags before the one you acted on. So I was looking at this one, and lodged my objection on the talk page that you deleted - and then you deleted it. Somehow I don't think that was the correct procedure, Admin. Newimpartial (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Objecting to a speedy deletion tag does not automatically mean that the CSD is removed. It simply means that you have an interest in saving the page. As I said above - you made your point convincingly for the G12 to be overturned. I overturned it. And then I deleted the page as spam. Primefac (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, you dont seem to understand that we have a legal obligation to remove copyvio immediately, regardless of whether its BITEY or not. In addition, something that blatantly spammy needs to go. Speedy deletion is for content that is unsalvageable, and there was nothing remotely salvagable about that draft. People, new orbnot, should already know that copyvio isnt acceptable anywhere. Waggie (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then the policy is to delete the WP:COPYVIO content, is it not? Not to delete the page? Anyway, I have put in a request for review to clear this up. The person who nominated this page for SD made a number of mistaken nominations in the same session, so I just wanted to see it discussed properly. If I am mistaken about the appropriateness of this particular deletion, then I apologize, but Primefac has also in turn made a number of statements today at MfC that are against WP:CONSENSUS, so I am having difficulty trusting their judgement.Newimpartial (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This nonsense is now at ANi Legacypac (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, including these edits. <,_Alabama&action=history>

<>Newimpartial (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Draft:Isik Abla

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:Isik Abla. 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. Newimpartial (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough re: Bludgeon. I have no intention to reply to every comment, but I was having difficulty giving an account of my reasoning because of the edit conflicts. You have friends. :) Newimpartial (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Snack Break at the Poodle Factory


You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You might want to recheck that deletion. Not only did you delete a page I had already declined to delete (and thus allowed admin shopping), it also did not meet A9 on both counts: It's a recording by a band of a notable musician and it contained two reliable sources covering the album. Regards SoWhy 08:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, total cruise control action there. Saw there wasn't a "band page" (i.e. Midget Handjob) and that the Rolling Stone was mostly not about the album, and just went with it. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, that's what trouts are for Thanks for restoring it! Regards SoWhy 13:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beecher High School (Michigan) and WP:ORG

I fail to see your logic in prodding the above article. There are not one but two independent sources on the article and absolutely nothing in the recent RfC changed the general assumption that multiple independent sources exist. As a matter of fact, US, Canadian, British and Australian schools were specifically mentioned in the close affirming that assumption. A quite lazy (or ignorant) new editor created this and several other school articles with just an infobox. My data connection is slow until Tuesday, so I'm trying to flesh them out a little now and more when my data speed increases. Fyi, this school is in suburban Flint, one of the largest cities in Michigan. John from Idegon (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak to any other country, but every single high school in the US will meet GNG (ORG is specifically not required) on athletics alone. Please don't waste people's time with deletion processes on school articles. John from Idegon (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John from Idegon I'm not sure I follow your logic. How will all high schools meet GNG? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that and I also did say how. Almost all US papers have a sports section. In all but the largest cities, at least two days a week, that sports section is devoted to high school sports. Not just game results, but detailed description of individual games, discussion in detail of individual programs, articles about particularly successful coaches, discussions of rivalries etc. If a newspaper happens to be in a competitive market, coverage of local sports is frequently the deciding factor on which paper to buy. Every state has a tournament system for all sanctioned sports. So even a small school in Podunk will get covered in a fairly major paper when it has successes in the tournament. There are enough sanctioned sports in the US that virtually every school has a chance to succeed at something. Sports like cross country, tennis, and golf require very little capital outlay for a school so even the poorest schools can and do have successes. Both the USA Today and the Sporting News cover high school sports. The coverage of athletics in US schools alone is enough to guarantee GNG. However, it is certain that local papers will cover budgetary and taxation issues, construction, staff issues and the inevitable crime on the campus. Some of the more local papers aren't indexed on Google. Many midsized city's papers aren't indexed prior to the turn of the century. Sources only have to exist. There is nothing saying they have to be able to be found easily. Logic dictates they are there. I understand the skepticism people not from the US have about the importance of high school athletics. I cannot find a link to the sources for this, but in the early 80s, a high school team from a very small town in SW Michigan had a very successful football team (Mendon). They went to the state tournament in Pontiac at the stadium the Detroit Lions played in at the time and literally (no hyperbole at all), every single citizen in the village left town and attended the game, nearly 200 miles away. I know that for certain because I was a volunteer firefighter in a neighboring village and spent that day in their firehouse so all the firefighters could go. This fact was covered in three television markets, including Detroit, which at the time was the fifth largest city in the country. It seems somewhat nonsensical to me, but that exemplifies how Americans feel about high school sports. Friday Night Lights is fictionalized; it is not fiction. John from Idegon (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John from Idegon You did say that above. "every single high school in the US will meet GNG". But regarding the other stuff, GNG will not always be met. Coverage in local papers is not really significant and coverage of every game is routine... and we routinely delete stuff that has quite a lot of coverage in local papers for both of the reasons i've already mentioned. Saying that all HS will meet GNG is wrong and silly. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)@John from Idegon::--Did this massive enlightment reach out to you after this edit?Seriously, prodding an article which had just enough to identify itself as a school and then following up with this advice is pretty..... Winged Blades Godric 05:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have argued both ways about coverage from local papers. I do not see it as a principle; I see it as supporting a decision on whether we want to cover the topic or not, based upon our idea of what an encyclopedia ought to be. That it can so easily be argued both ways shows the practical uselessness of the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 14:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel White

What did I do wrong for it to be deleted? Can I remove something to get it reinstated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakralamn (talkcontribs) 17:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this has been recreated without the copyright violation. Good luck. Primefac (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

added Doug BellDennis BrownClpo13ONUnicorn
removed ThaddeusBYandmanBjarki SOldakQuillShyamJondelWorm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hello again. I disagree with the deletion. I have often used "dated", so I don't have to date every maintenance template. I don't rely on bots too much. --George Ho (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho, the result of the deletion (and subsequent action) was that you don't have to date every maintenance template. They are now all going to be updated by a bot if there is no date. Thus, you don't have to actually change your habits. Primefac (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.... I don't know. Who would fix the bot that does automatically date maintenance tags if the bot operation is inactive? I don't want to conclude that the decision would encourage lethargy and too much reliance on bots. However, I am worried. Also, TfD has very low participation. Why not undelete? --George Ho (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to request deletion review, but three people (one being the creator of the template) were in favour of deletion (and there was no opposition) so I'm not overly inclined to undelete just on the off chance that Anomie gets hit by a bus and AnomieBOT stops working the next day. Primefac (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh... I didn't know that I can type in ((subst:cleanup)), which can automatically transclude the tag and the date. Nifty. I almost filed for DRV, but then I changed my mind after realizing what "subst" does. --George Ho (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC); see below. 05:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A fact I explicitly stated in my tfd nomination. Pppery 02:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page gnome) The Cleanup documentation may need an update though: It says that the template should not be substituted. On the other hand if I substitute it as a test, the end result is it substituting to another unsubstituted version (itself), so it's safe in this case (with the side effect noted above)... —PaleoNeonate - 02:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PaleoNeonate, I've updated the doc. Thanks for the heads up. Primefac (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: thank you; I have also just made this change. —PaleoNeonate - 19:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Thanks, I missed that part. Primefac (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 3. —Cryptic 04:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... I didn't know that the DRV is filed suddenly. George Ho (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vladyslav Nossov

Hello. After your edit on the page Vladyslav Nossov only his second convocation is shown, first is not shown. Why Template:Infobox Ukrainian legislative office is okay here, here, here and here but not okay in Vladyslav Nossov? --TohaomgTohaomg (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tohaomg, I made a mistake in that edit, which I have since corrected. ((Infobox Ukrainian legislative office)) is being deleted, but it has to be manually folded into ((infobox officeholder)), which is why there are still some pages using it. Primefac (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Your BRFA, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 16 has been approved. Happy editing, — xaosflux Talk 15:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeBOT 16, Cornell US Code update

I realize you have approval on this bot and that I missed the RFA; however, can I suggest that you halt, and instead use the template ((USC)) for your updating? At the moment, it has the same effect, but it will have the advantage of changing to another repository if a better one comes along (for example, if a well-populated official congressional site is established).

See, e.g., [1]. TJRC (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TJRC, I've already finished with the bot run, but this is a completely reasonable request and I'm willing to put in another bot request to convert existing elinks to a template, especially since there seem to be about 1500 extant uses of the bare URL. but it also depends on if just the URL is used - most of the uses I'm seeing are within various citations templates such as ((cite web)). Primefac (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Please drop me a note if you put in that request; I'd like to support it, obviously. I leave for a length vacation in a week, so if the timing is bad, please feel free to point to this exchange as a !vote of support. I agree it shouldn't affect "cite web", unless that turns out to be easy.
For what it's worth, using the USC template, rather than cite web, is consistent with MOS:LEGAL for citation of legal materials. TJRC (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just so I don't have to make it up again - [2] is the search for the URL outside of cite templates. Primefac (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


My posting first read 50%, and I changed it the last minute to 100%. Otherwise the egg would have been on my face. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017-18 NCAA Football Bowl Games Template

Why Did you Delete the template for please save it please. 2600:8803:7A00:976A:99BD:D3E3:1189:B71F (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The template was deleted as a result of this deletion discussion. If you wish to contest the closure, you will have to contact either the editor who closed the discussion or start a deletion review. Primefac (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please start a deletion review now. 2600:8803:7A00:976A:99BD:D3E3:1189:B71F (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I nominated the template, no. Today's DRV page is here, and the instructions are at WP:DRV. Primefac (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2016 Big West Conference men's soccer season has been accepted

2016 Big West Conference men's soccer season, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Primefac (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see you going through the AfC process, Primefac  ;) keep up the good work! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 14:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, only when a page is submitted without a timestamp or username :p Primefac (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC archival template autosubst

Long story, sorry. There's an upcoming CSS change to the navbox class that could add unwanted borders to templates like ((AfC-c)) that aren't navboxes but use the navbox class. So I tried editing ((AfC-c)) to remove the navbox class from it. This broke some old AfC archive pages, and I had to revert. Turned out, even though ((Afc a)) and ((Afc b)) were usually substituted, sometimes a top was transcluded and a bottom was substituted, resulting in a mismatch. I hoped getting the tops substituted might make it possible to edit ((AfC-c)) again. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Just make sure they get added to the force list. Primefac (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marjorie Cussons / Goodwin


I am disappointed that you have declined this submission.

I understand you point that there is a heavy reliance on family sources. However there are a great deal from publicly accessable publications too. I have exhausted the options.

Marjorie Cussons is a historically important and inspirational woman. Her two brothers both have Wikipedia pages with far fewer citations. She achieved far more in her extraordinary life than both of them put together.

It is precisely that she was a woman that she needs a page. She was a founder member of World Wild Life (WWF), this alone is reason enough for a page surely? The fact that she created a world famous soap brand is too worth a mention? She did all of this in a time when females cooked dinner for their husbands and cleaned their houses.

Marjorie Cussons was a pioneering, inspirational, philanthropic and gifted woman. People need to know about her.

I therefore ask that you reconsider and put her page on Wikipedia.

Many thanks,

Henry (Henryshrigleyfeigl (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Henryshrigleyfeigl, my primary concern when declining your draft was one of verifiability. Yes, she is definitely a notable individual, but how am I supposed to verify (for example) She contributed heavily ... in aid of The Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust... when the source of this information is a letter? This is why we need reliable sources for facts. You seem to have included a lot of relatively minor (and possibly overly detailed) information about her life, which if not properly sourced might as well be removed. For example, does it really matter if she was invited by HRH Prince Philip and HRH Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands to join the 1001 club? Does it even matter if she joined the club, if she didn't make enough of an impact to merit something written in a non-primary source? Primefac (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac(talk) Ok, thanks for that. Perhaps you could highlight the bits that you don't deem relevant. I think it does matter that she was asked to join the 1001 club. It is simply stating that she was recognised by Prince Philip for her contributions. To suggest that she may not have made an impact is not correct as the very fact that she was a member of this club means that she helped fund the WWF.

Like I said, I cannot find any more mentions of her to cite. I don't know what else to do. She deserves a page as her contributions to industry and to African wildlife preservation are exceptional. Like I said both of her brothers have pages with significantly less achievemnets. Is this because they are men?

I am asking for your help here. I have done the best I can with the article.

Many thanks Henry (Henryshrigleyfeigl (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC))

I'll see what I can do. Primefac (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect application of G5

Your recent deletion of Kiran Klaus Patel violated WP:CSD#G5, which clearly states that it applies only to articles "that have no substantial edits by others". I have restored the article and take responsibility for its content. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I missed your addition (I only noticed the rearrangement of content). Thanks for the note. Primefac (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The future of NPP and AfC/Work group

Hi Primefac,

In view of the huge and sudden backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed since mid 2016, the WMF has begun a dialogue in a quest to examine the situation and possible solutions. Please consider commenting there if you have not already done so. It is highly recommended to read it all before it becomes too long to follow. The project is at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Analysis and proposal, and its talk page.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Your recent BRFA, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 17, has been approved. Happy editing, — xaosflux Talk 03:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

mass deletions

I have always opposed this, except for one or two obvious cases--the reckless Chinese geostubs, the wrongly classified slime molds. I certain object to doing it for G5, because someone may want to rescue some of them by substantially rewriting. Me, for example. I'm asking you to undelete those which you cannot prove to be entirely copyvio and move to draft space. I'll take them from there. As for the copyvios, I shall probably rewrite them from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, if you feel the pages are worth saving, I won't stop you from recreating the pages and/or undeleting them. I concur that it's unfortunate when viable pages are created by socks (though, in fairness, that's kind of what they do) but we shouldn't be giving credit to people who intentionally break the rules. Thus, I have no intentions of undeleting them myself. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this sort of situation creates a dilemma for which we have no real solution. In my view, it depends very much on the motivation of the socking attempt--incompetence which still leaves a usable stub is different from promotionalism. And as another factor, I actively support the idea of large scale creation of stub articles when it can be done to avoid copyvio and error, and limited to those subject of reasonable certain notability. I realize you don't. But we have been accepting articles in some areas where they show no signs of problems. The test for professor articles will be when these are done by someone more careful than most of those who have been doing it. I've been intending to try for some time now. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hello P. Could you please restore my sandbox that was changed to a redirect for some reason. I had planned on just copying the virtual plaque to S's talk page. I was going to use the sandbox for other things as time goes forward. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 16:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MarnetteD, just edit the page and remove the #REDIRECT. You're welcome to copy it to their talk page, I just moved it to the HoF subpage for archival and ease-of-use purposes. Primefac (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good deal. Thanks for the explanation and many thanks for helping to get the plaque to the HoF. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussion

I just "patrolled" an AfD discussion page. What in the name of Lucifer is the point of adding AfD discussion pages in the number of backlog?
I can digest adding drafts, and userpages in the queue; but adding pages where a bunch of wanna be admins are active, why? —usernamekiran(talk) 19:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Kiran, they are not actually in the backlog/queue as it is currently talked about in the NPP project, which is generally understood to mean the backlog of new main space creations that can be viewed at Special:NewPagesFeed. NewPagesFeed does not list anything other than userspace or mainspace creations, and is filtered to one namespace at a time. At the same time, all new pages regardless of namespace can be viewed at Special:NewPages until they are patrolled or thirty days have elapsed. You can see more discussion of this topic here. I also believe there was a proposal at some point to autopatrol AfDs but it didn't get any traction. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I once reviewed the main page. True story. TimothyJosephWood 20:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info Tony.
I am not not sure if you are telling the truth or pulling my leg Timothy usernamekiran(talk) 20:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really did. I think it may have been a bug. Maybe I should have attempted to try out some of the curator functions, you know... for science. TimothyJosephWood 20:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing UTM parameters

Just spotted that the machine also cut out the </ref> tag here. Checked a few articles up and down the contribution history and they looked fine, so not sure if this always happens when it's confronted with a bare url between ref tags (only instance I came across), or just this once as a fluke. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Philopater, I caught that myself about 500 edits in. I'm manually checking/fixing the cases I'm coming across, and I've updated the bot's code so it doesn't remove the tags. Thanks for letting me know, though, that could have been bad if I hadn't seen it! Primefac (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]