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 Template talk:Texas House of Representatives.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You've got mail

Hello, Plastikspork. Please check your e-mail – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the e-mail is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Put a smile in thou face

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!

Re: Your closure of the PDFlink TfD

Hi Plastikspork. You closed the above TfD as merging the PDFLink template into the cite * family of templates. However, I'm not entirely clear what should happen in cases where the PDFLink template is being used for something other than citations (e.g. external links). The consensus at the TfD isn't entirely clear to me in that regard, I'm not sure if you considered that in your closure? I'm asking because of this bot request for approval, feel free to respond there. Thanks, - Kingpin¹³ (talk)

Template:Unco & Template:Egypt Central

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 There was consensus to delete Egypt Central due to the lack of primary links, and that the band is no longer active, so will not be generating any new primary links.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)

Template:Kansas cities and mayors of 100,000 population

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)

Proposal to rename tracking categories

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)

Please delete User:Tbhotch and User:(CA)Giacobbe

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)

Deletion and close of discussion at Template:Sidebar subsection

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)

Edit to Northernhenge's sandbox

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)

University at Buffalo's Davis Hall

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)

Template:Presidents of India

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)

Template:Curazie of San Marino

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)

Jax templates

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)

geodist

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)

Deletion and close of discussion for Template:Austria squad 2010 UEFA European Under-19 Football Championship

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)

Protests against the Oresharski cabinet

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)

(Redirected from User talk:SporkBot)

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)

Template:MalawiPresidents

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)

NFT player

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)