User talk:Plastikspork

General Notes

Nielsen Ratings

Posted copyright warning for Nielsen Media.

Is IMDB a reliable source?

1. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 17#Is IMDb a reliable_source?
2. Wikipedia:Citing IMDb

Prefix search

• Special:PrefixIndex

Catscan

• US nuclear plants and NRC region # templates

Talkback

Hello, Plastikspork. You have new messages at DePiep's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I need help with this user's contributions

I need your help reverted User:Paniolia's contributions. This user moved the talkpage of Stefan Szkafarowsky to be the user's talkpage. I've attempted moving that page (containing welcome message and notices) to be User talk:Paniolia, not Talk:Stefan Szkafarowsky. To make matters worse, it seems this user also started Wikipedia talk:Stefan Szkafarowsky as a link to their "user talkpage". I would appreciate your help with this. Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Unfortunately WP:CSD#R2 only applies to redirects from article space. This user has created four redirects, all as the result of two separate moves of the same page: User:Paniolia, User talk:Paniolia, Wikipedia:Stefan Szkafarowsky, Wikipedia talk:Stefan Szkafarowsky (move log). --Redrose64 (talk) 11:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC) amended --Redrose64 (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've moved the talk page back to its proper place at User talk:Paniolia and zapped the trail of redirects (see here) so that any future edits concerning the article Stefan Szkafarowsky won't affect the user talk page. That leaves User:Paniolia and Wikipedia:Stefan Szkafarowsky possibly needing clean-up. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks for sorting it out. I think we can delete the WP space -> article space redirect as well. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Membership

I was not notified of this deletion. I am rather shocked that months of work was deleted over such minor comments by few IPs. Please restore these templates. I have already filed a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 May 25#Template:Membership -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why you didn't try Step 1? This almost certainly could have been resolved quickly. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought I was following procedure... :/ I don't deal with deletions undeletions normally. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, we can always drag the whole thing out for a week. Your point about the IP not following the "recommended procedure" since you were not notified carries quite a bit of weight with me, although doesn't with others since it is only a recommendation. Whenever I find that to be the case, my standard response is to relist the discussion, no matter how many other editors have voiced an opinion. I am also more than happy to have my bot do a regexp search and replace to help fix the templates if the final resolution is to userfy. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Users aren't required to be notified, I know this. I just strongly feel the deletion discussion was inadequate.

A regex would be difficult to construct since it is countless templates within templates among parser functions. If you can pull it off, be my guest but I think it is wasted energy. It also complicates my ability to improve. It is certainly not a standard practice to dump hundreds of templates on userspace just because 2-3 users wish it. I think they are being unreasonable and complicating my ability to develop this template further for no good reason. They have not expressed any reason why the pages cannot be in template namespace aside from a pollution remark.

Also I think the template can be used on infoboxes without the code development since it is one transclusion per page. This wasn't something I was thinking before the deletion discussion since I was too focused on large lists with multiple transclusions rather than a single transclusion. The main obstacle is I need assistance in gathering membership dates for individual countries. This is easy for 1 country but when you deal with ~200 it becomes a chore.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 00:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:NOT

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:NOT. 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. Captaincollect1970 (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Plastikspork. Would you add a closing rationale to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 19#Template:NOT to assist participants at DRV? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

China sub stubs

Hi, currently at ANI there are plans to nuke 10,000 articles on Chinese townships, basically everything ever created by User:Jaguar, including the SPanish municipalities I'm trying to source and save. I agree that 8000-10,000 articles would demand years of hard work to get them all up to a reasonable status but the average township article could look like Anxiang Township. If they are all deleted, chances are in might not be for years until anybody covers much of them. And the thing is, all the stubs link to the website which just needs the exact township linked and a bit of data extracted. I think it would be far more productive in the long term to organize something to add the Chinese and exact links and try to use something to extract raw data. Would it be possible to code something to copy the Chinese from the relative townships list e.g List of township-level divisions of Hebei and use that to find the exact township on the website given in the refs? Its just its very destructive what they're planning when they could surely be saved with some sort of coding.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Coding is always possible when there is an unambiguous task. The problem is that I have no idea what exactly is entailed here. I also don't read/write Chinese and have no experience with parsing Chinese pages. However, if you could be more specific, I might be able to do something. But, your best option may be to simply ask someone else with more experience with this sort of thing. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah they got deleted ...♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want any specific ones restored, I'm sure we could work something out. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, 8,000 articles were deleted from here. They could probably all be restored if the errors are removed and perhaps some content is added.. i believe the best thing would be to recreate with a bot or something.. There are some sites which consistently have population and area data and a list of the village committees.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Broken deletion summaries

Hi there, Plastikspork. Since you work plenty with templates, I was wondering if you could look into some odd deletion summary messages. For example, when I was going to delete Category:Wikipedia files needing editor assistance at upload as of 25 May 2012, the deletion summary ends up looking like this: %5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23G6%7CG6%5D%5D%3A+Housekeeping+and+routine+%28non-controversial%29+cleanup. This also occurs with prods (take Bernie Marsden (album), for example, I get Expired+%5B%5BWP%3APROD%7CPROD%5D%5D%2C+concern+was%3A+no+sources+to+be+found.+no+such+album.+duplicate+of+%5B%5BGoing+to+My+Hometown+%28album%29%5D%5D). Everything was fine just 24 hours ago, and I'm not sure what happened. Is this a problem with the coding of the templates, or is the issue go beyond that? — ξ^xplicit 00:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

That's very strange. I may be able to figure it out, but you should certainly ask other editors as well (e.g., VPT). I will let you know if I track anything down. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) MediaWiki:Sysop.js was recently moved to MediaWiki:Group-sysop.js (see MediaWiki talk:Group-sysop.js#Conversion to gadgets). The move left a #REDIRECT [[MediaWiki:Group-sysop.js]] behind, which I'm sure isn't valid JavaScript. This may have something to do with it. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like that was it and it's fixed now. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Maspeling

can we speedy delete Template:Maspeling per Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_17#Template:Maspecorg and other ma* discussions? Frietjes (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

AR portal

That was very kind of you, and just what I was looking for. Thank you! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Cinema templates

Hi Sporky. For the cinema template removal/replacing, could I suggest a couple of improvements to your bot:

1. If multiple templates exist (for example, a French and Algerian co-production), can the bot replace them in one go, instead of doing them a country at a time. In some cases, one article could be edited four times or more.
2. Adding a category for a country that isn't "hard coded" in the foot of the article. Can this be placed after the year of release, instead of before it, so the cats are in A-Z order?

Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I stopped the bot after I noticed the large number with multiple templates. I will work on recoding it in a bit. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox settlement Chile

Hi Plastikspork,

I suppose that both infoboxes will be merged first and then the new template will be deleted. I have done my work for WP and I expect that other people improve it and don't destroy it. In this spirit, I agree the decision.

I would like to help you by merging, but I am not a expert in WP templates. My only idea is to create 4 new variables: image_right, image_left1, image_left2 and image_left3. If image_right exists then the "old" images (that is the old layout) shouldn't be shown but only the new images (image_left1-3 and image_right) in a table as in Infobox settlement Chile. In this way, old data records without a "image_right" variable will be processed as always.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the plan is to not delete the template until such a feature is added. I was thinking we might, instead, add something like 'pushpin_map_right' or 'pushpin_map_narrow' and then have the template automatically put the pushpin map on the right side with a more narrow width. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

dashes.js

Hi Plastikspork,

GregU (talk · contribs) has not been active on this project for some months now. However, I and a few other editors are using his dashes script quite intensively for the last few months. That, together with the ever-increasing "creativity" of editors' formatting and template writing (and occasionally not abiding by MOS), means that a number of false positives showing up are increasing. The issues have been flagged on his talk page, but he's simply not around to respond. As Wikipedia's template guru, general tech expert and helpful dude, could you help investigating the script and making necessary coding changes thereto or to the offending template? Thanks. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It may be better to just fork the script if he isn't going to be available to make changes. It would also be nice to refactor it a bit to make it able to be used with other templates. Someone had asked me awhile back if this was possible. I could certainly fix specific bugs, but it would probably be better if I were not editing another user's userspace without expressed permission from that user. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Henry Scherren and the EB in general

Hi, I see you've removed a template which used to give very convenient access to the 1911 EB. It hasn't done much damage to the Henry Scherren page itself, but out of curiosity I followed the Wikisource link to the Henry Scherren Wikisource page, and it's all redlinks! This is pretty catastrophic as it must be repeated on thousands of other pages.

Is there a plan or mechanism for restoring or replacing all the lost accessibility to 1911 EB pages?

I suppose there must be some reason for the action that has been taken but given that it can't be copyright, I do wonder what it might be, and what we can do about it.

Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

hi, when I nominated this template for deletion all it did was create a link to a page here at WP. I cannot see the page history to see if it had done anything prior to the state that it was in when I nominated it. it would seem to me that the best thing to do now would be to see where it was removed and make sure there is a citation to the corresponding page at http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/. in this case, there is such a citation. there is a way to track external link to the www.1911encyclopedia.org site, so we can always check what links to that site, and add other links if there is a secondary source but the link to www.1911encyclopedia.org seems to work fine. Frietjes (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well thankyou, I wish you good luck with all that. Still not sure I understand the deletion, nor what caused what, but I do think it was better before so perhaps we could restore the template or replace its effects, whatever they were, in some way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

as I said, when I nominated it for deletion, all it did was create a link to an article here at WP. so typing {{EB1911 Link|Platypus}} produced exactly the same thing as [[Platypus]]. I nominated it because it was pointless in this form, requiring more typing than just typing the wikilink. I cannot see the template history, so I don't know if it ever did anything more. I checked and PS only removed it from two articles, in both cases there are links to the www.1911encyclopedia.org site, so there is still a link to the article in the 1911 EB. you can find all the links to the 1911encyclopedia.org site using this search. so if there is a need to link to another site at some point in time, we can always change it. Frietjes (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 25#Template:DNB lkpl. I've just checked the template history for {{EB1911 Link}}, and it contains just two entries: the creation of the template by Rich Farmbrough, and the addition of the TFD by Frietjes. In both cases the behaviour when transcluded was exactly the same: the wikicode {{EB1911 Link|Platypus}} was equivalent to simply entering [[Platypus]]. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for sorting it out. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

UFC Undisputed 3 Templates?

Why did you get rid of them? They worked well, and UFC Undisputed 2009 and 2010 have them... JonnyBonesJones (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

They were deleted as the result of this discussion. The general consensus is that we don't need templates with only a single use in a single article, since it makes it less clear how to edit the content. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you gunna get the other pages too? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like they have already been renominated and subsequently deleted. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Closed no consensus tfd

May I request you to please reopen the tfd [1] that was marked as no consensus, as in my opinion it should have been relisted to generate more consensus rather than closing. There were valuable comments from many users, It has been nominated again and now a user is claiming for POINT. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I did close this as no consensus, mostly due to the active editing that was happening continuously during the discussion. Unfortunately, that appears to be happening again, even with this second nomination. It's really hard to have a discussion about something which is constantly changing, since the comments earlier in the thread may not be related to the comments later in the thread. But, that's the way it goes. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Template

Hi Plastikpork, interwiki for this template Template:Navbox with collapsible groups--Nihan (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you figured it out, you just need to edit the doc page. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

AutoEd

Just curious - is the whitespace feature of autoed intended to remove white space in infobox parameters. I personally prefer that "=" to be lined up so you can quickly scan the parameters on the right to find the thing you want to fix. I've seen these removed recently by this tool and was wondering if that was intended or improper use of the tool. --Trödel 13:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The AutoEd project started from a codebase which tried to do as much as possible to reduce the number of characters in the wikitext (within reason). Obviously, this is not always the best idea from a readability standpoint. Several people have complained about the unalignment of infoboxes, and also about the removal of newlines after section headings. At some point, I would like to create a less aggressive whitespace module, to give people an option. When I was using it, I would cut the infobox out, then run AutoEd, then paste it back in. I would also check the diffs to make sure there wasn't anything else that made the diffs unreadable (like removal of newlines which cause the diffs not to line up). So, yes it is functioning as intended, but editors should realize that its not always a good idea to use all the features. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! --Trödel 14:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

template:Ausdaytimeschedule

Hi. I see you noticed my bit of AfD trophy collecting. How about pasting a copy of the navbox code right into that page? I'd done something cute with the “look”. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

 Terima kasih. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

tfd'ing of templates

Hi. About this [2]: Why not to include tfd part in noinclude (see here:[3])? And where is the "this template's entry" at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion? Anchored link doesn't work: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Film_Italy`a5b (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Discussion was actually at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 12#"Cinema of" templates but since all the 12 May discussions have closed, that subpage is no longer listed on the main WP:TFD page. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Saudibox

see tfd 198.102.153.2 (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Are there real advantage to these replacements?

Hi Plastikpork. An editor recently made these changes to some the tables I entered, everywhere replacing align="right" with style="text-align:right;". Are there real advantages doing this, sufficient to warrant the untidy complication of the tables? --Epipelagic (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The align attribute is deprecated as of HTML 4.01, so I can see make such a replacement to "upgrade" the HTML. However, we are not supposed to be concerned too much with HTML at WP, since the backend software should be able to translate the Wikitext into fully standards compliant HTML. So, it would make sense that the MediaWiki software should be able to automatically translate align=right into style="text-align:right" if it is important to do so. In the end, I think it is probably a debatable change to the article, but not one that I would care enough about to actually debate. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that :) --Epipelagic (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Need some help with stranded templates marked for TfD

Hi Plastikspork, I'm writing to you because you closed the mass opera composer navbox TfD. The list of 50 navboxes with 2 and 3 opera links was closed as "Keep". I now discover that the nominator had nominated another 15 composer navboxes on the same day (May 30) but forgot to list them in the deletion discussion. Consequently, they are still languishing with TfD templates on them and no linked discussion. All of them are 2 or 3 opera ones and would have been kept had they been listed properly. I'm happy to remove the TfD templates from them with an edit summary referring to the deletion discussion, but wanted to check if I could do that or if it needs an admin. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Cinema of ...

Hi Spork,
I just saw your Bot zapping one of those templates.
Should we let your bot do them all?
The side effect of those templates involved categorization.
If we are zapping a template ourselves, we need to confirm a specific categorization first, before deleting the template?
Varlaam (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)