User talk:Primefac

This is Primefac's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47: 15 days

Reverted redirect from article Solar eclipse of January 4, 1992

Hello! I’ve reverted your change from earlier on August 28 to redirect the Solar eclipse of January 4, 1992 article to List of solar eclipses in the 20th century. I’m not sure what you mean when you provided “nothing here” as the summary of your edit—there is information not provided on the redirect such as a summary of the eclipse’s path, an animation, and related eclipses. Additionally, virtually all solar eclipses between 1901–2100, save for a few marginal events at the poles, already have their own standalone article. I cannot think of a sound reason why the article should become a redirect. Tinh1000000 (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel to this, I looked into it for a minute or two and found a ton of newspaper sources that describe stuff that happened (gatherings of skywatchers, descriptions of the event, etc). I added a couple -- I'm a bit hamstrung because Newspapers.com's redesign completely busted PressPass and I have to type the cites manually, or else I'd have more. In the meantime, though, I see that you redirected a whole ton of them... oh noes! Might you reconsider letting some of them roam? I would be glad to attempt finding some more in-depth coverage for them. jp×g 02:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted a redirect; Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186

Good evening! Like the person above, I've reverted the redirect you've placed on Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186. While I understand why you may have wanted to revert it, I believe that this eclipse would be considered notable, as it is confirmed that it will be the longest eclipse in thousands of years, and several sources have confirmed that it will happen despite the date being so far out in the future. I can see other future eclipses not ready for an article, but I strongly believe we can keep this one. Thank you! 2603:8000:CD02:FC64:5C33:A4A3:FBCA:2A3F (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to all three threads) If folks want to revert my actions, that's fine; I was honestly a bit surprised that 80s/90s eclipses (which were a HUGE deal in my school at the time) didn't have more non-database-dump statistics on it (and I wasn't finding much myself from a quick check), so I took a BOLD action in redirecting. I am all for additional expansion and cleanup, and happy to help if and where necessary. Primefac (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't mean to poop on your efforts here. There really are a lot of articles that need to be redirects. Of the ones I've looked at there were a few where I really couldn't come up with any coverage whatsoever, despite lost of newspaper trawling, so I've left them. I guess if we are all coalesced here to poke through them I may as well post the list:

Solar eclipse of May 25, 1808 (couldn't find anything)
Solar eclipse of July 9, 1888 (couldn't find anything)
Solar eclipse of January 14, 1907 Y
Solar eclipse of September 10, 1923 Y
Solar eclipse of January 14, 1926 Y
Solar eclipse of June 19, 1936 Y
Solar eclipse of June 8, 1937 Yg
Solar eclipse of September 21, 1941 Yg
Solar eclipse of February 25, 1952 Yg
Solar eclipse of June 20, 1955 Yg
Solar eclipse of May 30, 1965 Y
Solar eclipse of February 16, 1980 Yg
Solar eclipse of July 31, 1981 Yg
Solar eclipse of January 15, 1991 Yg
Solar eclipse of January 4, 1992 Y
Solar eclipse of November 3, 1994 Yg
Solar eclipse of April 29, 1995 Yg
Solar eclipse of December 14, 2001 Yg
Solar eclipse of June 10, 2002 Y
Solar eclipse of May 31, 2003 Y
Solar eclipse of April 8, 2005 Y
Solar eclipse of June 1, 2011 Yg

jp×g 06:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Came here through New Page Patrol - I agree with both of you. If the article has only generic astronomical info and nothing about the observation of the eclipse itself then it doesn't deserve an article, but if you actually add newspaper reports then having a separate article makes sense. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have expanded the ones that are

, and I've found references to populate the ones that are

; I intend to go back through and flesh out the

s from the refs, but of course whoever else feels like doing this is welcome as well. jp×g 01:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most excellent, glad to see these could be improved. Primefac (talk) 07:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probationary Participant

Hi, I see that you have added me as a probationary participant on WikiProject Articles for creation. What would this mean, am I already able to review articles or do I need to wait until I am included as a full participant. ᚴᛁᚾᚷ ᚼᛒ Talk, Guestbook

It will be hard to evaluate your reviewing if you do not review any drafts during your probationary period. Primefac (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do I mark an article as reviewed?

ᚴᛁᚾᚷ ᚼᛒ Talk, Guestbook 13:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions for using AFCH are at WP:AFCH. Primefac (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October music

Regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions, specifically regarding infoboxes2: you opposed without reasoning, and I am curious. I commented in the discussion, pointing at precise recent discussions which might change your mind - or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning was (mostly) contained in the Comments section below it as I was still mulling over the issue when I first posted. The other comments were enough to move me to the opposition. I did see your comment and read through a few of the links, but I find myself agreeing with 2020 me; we might not have infobox "wars" but the remedies of those cases have likely helped keep things quiet. Primefac (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just for my understanding: what do you think they changed, or will change? My view is that most editors don't even know they exist. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the editors who are the most aggressive in making their opinions known know about the remedies, and based on what happened to other editors (who did not play by the rules) have decided to tone it down appreciably. I could be wrong, people could have legitimately moved on. Ask me again in a year and I might more fully agree with you! (I am still mostly on the fence, just leaning over far enough to think it's worth keeping for now) Primefac (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if that probation is there or not. I have no idea what "the most aggressive" and "don't play by the rules" means for recent discussion. Please do me a favour, read Mozart, and if you have little time read only the closure and what Voceditenore said, and if you have more time tell me where there's aggression and not playing by the rules in that discussion. - I waited for 10 years already, and one more year doesn't really matter (provided I'll still be alive then). Also: I asked last year (not you personally) for ideas for peace. - More pics (if you click on "songs"), and today's story is on a birthday, and the real DYK was already on that birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today, it's a place that inspired me, musings if you have time. My corner for memory and music has today a juxtaposition of what our local church choirs offer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of Brian Bouldton today, and his ways to compromise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guatemala at the 2023 Pan American Games

Hi, the Guatemala NOC is suspended and will compete as the "Independent Athlete Team" (Equipo de atletas independientes) with the code EAI in Spanish, presumably (IAT) in English. Is it possible for this code to be setup with the Panamsports flag? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also any idea how to switch the US Virgin Islands to just Virgin Islands? Here is an ex [1]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to the first, I can try to get it to it later today. I have reverted the name change, but please be prepared to discuss this change and why you feel it should stay that way if it is contested again. Primefac (talk) 06:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert. This issue stems from the fact that in Olympic/Games contexts "Virgin Islands" seems to refer unambiguously to U.S. Virgin Islands, but in a more general context Template:Country data Virgin Islands is a disambiguation between U.S. and British Virgin Islands. I decided to resolve it by adding a new countrydata_name property to disambiguate in cases like this so that all the IOC* templates will work the same, but {{Flagg}} will use the correct disambiguated name if the "i" parameter is provided. --Habst (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A7 criteria

Some years ago I happened to view Sugar Shot to Space and I recall thinking about deleting it, but deciding instead that someday I should get around to expanding it.

Today I saw that you speedily deleted it per WP:A7, a few days after a speedy A7 nomination was declined because the subject (a science project) wasn't among the eligible topics that qualify for A7.

Some ineligible topics are listed in WP:A7 also, and a science project isn't among those listed either.

I'm just curious (if you can remember 5 years back) aobut your thinking on this. Or was it more of a "I know it when I see it" recognition of an A7 candidate?

As an admin myself, I thought of deleting it too, but the article made a credible claim of significance, so I refrained. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly couldn't say. If I had to guess, this was one of those cases where I didn't look at the history of the article to see an A7 had been declined, and in my mind it was "an obvious A7" so I just deleted it outright. The caveats and addendums surrounding A7 is one of the reasons I stopped patrolling that particular rationale for deletion... I'll restore it if you think a valid article could be written there, though. Primefac (talk) 06:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's OK. I had planned years ago to expand it and never got around to it. If I do get to it, I'll restore it myself, now that I know it's OK with you. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I kept the tab open, nagging me. A week later, I finally re-created the article from scratch instead of undeleting it. I didn't think it qualified for speedy deletion due to making a credible claim of significance, but finding coverage in reliable sources was difficult. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

botched-up page move/hist merge

Hi. I just realised I messed up with a page move. Basically, I manually undid a page move, but I had not realised the original page move was incorrect. A user moved Wikipedia:RFR to Wikipedia:WP:RFP. I didn't catch the double prefix, and mistakenly, I moved the new redirect to Wikipedia:WP:RFR. Would you kindly delete current version of Wikipedia:RFR, and move Wikipedia:WP:RFR to Wikipedia:RFR? —usernamekiran (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

never mind, I did it myself. —usernamekiran (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to help. Primefac (talk) 07:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore deleted navbox?

Hello! You deleted Template:Drag Race Sverige. I wonder if you'd consider restoring, since Category:Drag Race Sverige now has 6 entries. If there's a better place for submitting this request, please let me know. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not strictly opposed. Courtesy ping to Izno who closed the discussion. Primefac (talk) 09:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how well this will fair, but sure. Restored. Izno (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno Would you be willing to restore Template:Drag Race Belgique, too, please? There are now four entries and a second season has been confirmed so a fifth page will be created soon. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

mail

Hello, Primefac. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email 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.

I think I sent it yesterday, or day before that. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did see it, some things have kept me from responding. I meant to send a "I got this" reply but even that got sidetracked. I will respond as soon as I am capable. Primefac (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no worries, I thought it got lost in spam, or got overlooked. Take your time, but one request: kindly let me know after responding, or use email function, as I am rarely checking that email these days. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boo!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Primefac:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– Professor Penguino (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Professor Penguino (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 09:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primebot removing WP1.0 and moving Vital

Hi, Primefac; I'm confused by Primebot edits like this one. I see the TFD re removing WP1.0 (good riddance), but at the same time the bot is removing WP1.0, it is also moving Vital out of the bannershell, when WP:TALKLEAD consensus is that they should be in the banner shell. What did I miss ? This has hit my watchlist in more places than I can easily correct manually. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Vital is supposed to be in the banner shell, then WT:AWB needs to be informed, because currently it is set up that genfixes moves it out. I will disable genfixes for the rest of the run, but know that my anyone using AWB on an article talk page with genfixes enabled will be doing the same. Primefac (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]