User talk:Plastikspork

Leave a new message

Archives:

$, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Plastikspork is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries on this talk page. If you wish to obtain a more prompt response, please send an email.

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

General Notes

Nielsen Ratings

Posted copyright warning for Nielsen Media.

Is IMDB a reliable source?

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.

Template:Infobox locomotive

Template:Infobox locomotive, acceleration and deceleration, that's exactly what I wanted. Thanks. Peter Horn User talk 04:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision

as per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 11, I believe the following can be deleted as well: Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1956, Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1957, Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1958, Category:Eurovision Song Contest by year templates. 64.134.157.179 (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The three templates yes, not sure how I missed those on my original submission. But the category no. That category is to be re-used, once recategorizing discussions have taken place on the project. Wesley☀Mouse 18:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The category will most likely be speedily deleted since it's empty. Categories are trivial to recreate, so that won't be a problem. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

your deletion of utility templates `{{italic}}` and `{{bold}}`

was arbitrary. there was no discussion. a few people proclaimed their opinions/likes without bothering to provide a rationale. others provided reasons that are comical (fewer characters etc.). still others relied on incorrect assumptions (that templates were redundant when in actual fact, and as described, they were not). i asked several people to clarify their declarations and other statements, and they didn't. this hardly qualifies as consensus or discussion. these are templates that may potentially be used by any editor on any page, they require a much higher standard for deletion. please restore the templates while the merits of the nomination for deletion are properly considered. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

to be precise, i understand you marked the related tfd entries as "delete," then someone else actually deleted the templates. at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, some bot has devoured several nomination dates; all nominations between+including april 10 and april 13 are missing. the relevant nom date was april 13. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the discussion and did not see any strong arguments for keeping the template. If you disagree with the decision you can list it at WP:DRV. If you decide to list it at DRV, then please let me know. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

did you see any strong arguments for deleting them? this is the point, the reason given for the deletion was "delete following discussion." i dispute there was any real discussion at all. actually that seems to be the norm with the majority of nominations – there's action taken after minimal discussion, when it comes to delete decisions. is there a bias towards deletions? 65.88.88.126 (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i also noticed you deleted two other templates, Template:Section and Template:Comment. the tfds were not tagged per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, and the nominations and related "discussions" were not properly publicized. any comments? 65.88.88.126 (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the discussions yet again, and I see no strong argument for keeping them. The steps for nominating a template for deletion are to (1) tag the template with the {{tfd}} tag, and (2) inform the original author. I see no reason to believe this protocol was not followed. As for the actual arguments for deletion, (1) {{italic}} is generally redundant to '' ... ''. The name of the template doesn't indicate that it creates padding, and most all of the transclusions were not using this feature, as far as I can tell. We have templates like {{spaced ndash}}, but the name is more descriptive. (2) {{bold}} is generally redundant to ''' ... '''. (3) {{comment}} is generally redundant to the more commonly used . (4) {{section}} is generally redundant to {{visible anchor}} and {{anchor}}. Again, if you would like to take this to WP:DRV, please feel free, but make sure you let me know if you do. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

predictable, and entirely flawed. good luck in your endeavors. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rail vehicle templates

Plastikspork,
Please see my posts at Template talk:Infobox tram#Additional parameters or fields, Template talk:Infobox train#Truck or bogie centers as well as Template talk:Infobox locomotive#Truck or bogie centers. Peter Horn User talk 19:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will see if I can find some time to have a look, but I can't promise anything. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox rally

Hi, Plastikspork. I saw that a year ago you revamped Template:Infobox rally. In the length parameters, it tells the editor to enter the length in kilometres, without the "km" suffix, which the template adds automatically. I was wondering if you could make a minor change and remove the auto-"km" part so that editors can use {{convert}} to display kms and miles. And also change the entry name from "stagekm" to "stagelength" or something. I'd do it, but I have no idea how infoboxes work and I don't want to screw up a hundred or so pages because I made one lousy edit. After you've done it I'll go round and fix all the pages it appears on. Thanks, Matthewedwards : Chat 00:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you could change "teams" to "crews" or "entrants" because a team (like Citroen World Rally Team or BP-Ford WRT) is different from a crew. Some crews enter the rally privately without the backing of a team. Matthewedwards : Chat 00:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I would say that it would be a bad idea to change the way that an existing parameter expects its data to be supplied. Far better would be to add code so that the infobox does a conversion to miles, using the existing data format. As a suggestion, the infobox presently has two places with the following code:

{{{stagekm}}} km

If these were both amended as follows:

{{convert|{{{stagekm}}}|km|mi|abbr=on}}

the conversion would be done automatically for all articles without the need to change any of them. Similarly, the one instance of {{{overallkm}}} km can become {{convert|{{{overallkm}}}|km|mi|abbr=on}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If the units are in the name of the parameter, it should be a raw number. If we want unit conversion, then add it to the template. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi I was wondering if you could code something to copy the lists of municipalities and communes into the articles by Provinces of Morocco from Italian wikipedia like this. Basically its the same format, same source, but just copying the lists?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I am going to have much time in the near future, but you never know, things might change. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox UK ward

What are your thoughts on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 23#Template:Infobox UK ward? Are there technical issues preventing a merge? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will see if I can find some time later this week, but I don't think I am going to do much in the near future. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Section

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 17#Template:Section

I would like you to revert your deletion of Template:Section it is more efficient than anchor as it does not have the if statement. In some articles it is used dozens of times so there will be an overhead when using it which is unnecessary. Also unless one is familiar with HTML section is more intuitive than anchor. -- PBS (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what you state above is obvious to anyone who bothered to devote 2 minutes at the template:section's doc. this was pointed out in the discussion too, and was basically ignored. there was no other argument for deletion, apart from the incorrect, "redundant template." notice also that the tfd was not tagged, and (outside the discussion page), it remained unpublicized throughout.

based on the hasty and unexamined decision it seems to me that User:Plastikspork spent minimal time on this. contrast this with the time to be likely spent wading through bureaucratic procedure such as WP:DRV in order to do the, imo, obvious – 1. ask that the deletion argument be supported (the onus is on those advocating deletion) and 2. properly review the merits of the nomination and deletion discussion (assuming there is one). it also seems that renominating tfds that were designated "keep" or "no consensus" is much easier than having a deleted tfd relisted.

unfortunately, by his admission, User:Plastikspork is an absentee administrator; this compounds both the administrative sloppiness and the bureaucratic delay. as i pointed in another section, imo all this brings up the question of bias towards deletion. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I re-read the discussion and the main arguments for keeping it are (1) it's more efficient and (2) it has a second parameter for the section title. The main argument for deleting it is (1) redundant to more fully featured templates like {{anchor}} and {{visible anchor}}. We have some level of communal consensus that we don't worry about performance unless there is strong reason to believe this is not the case. The idea that the debate "remained publicized throughout" is simply false. It had a {{tfd}} tag on it for the entire time the discussion was open. If you feel it was a "biased deletion", then list it at WP:DRV. If there really are performance issues, and you want to create a less expensive template for the subpages of List of Latin phrases, then go right ahead. It may be nominated for deletion, but you would surely be able to defend its deletion with hard evidence showing the performance problems. We have many special purpose templates for creating anchors for glossary pages, and other special articles. I just don't see any evidence that there isn't widespread consensus for using {{anchor}} in most cases. If you do take it to WP:DRV, please let me know. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yup. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please move Template:Kip Moore to my user space?

Can you please move Template:Kip Moore to my user space? Thanks!--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Joseph's men's basketball team

Hey I'm working on a page for the 2003-2004 Saint Joseph's men's basketball team and I'm wondering if you'd be willing to help me add to the page (a summary of a big game etc). If you're interested, the link is 2003–04 Saint Joseph's Hawks men's basketball team. Thanks a lot! 5hane2012 (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)5hane20125hane2012 (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't think I am going to have any time to help in the near future. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

housekeeping

could you delete the following list of redirects? the context for this request can be found at User:GeorgeMoney/TEMP/Rpotd.

list

thank you. Frietjes (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for moving them! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox school

Hi. Can you add the pushpin map function?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could. Could you start a thread on the talk page, since that is a very heavily used template? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue alt text at Template:Location map

Hi PS, I've come across an accessibility problem at Template:Location map and documented it as best I can at Template talk:Location map #Suppressing alt text for the marker. I just wanted to ask if you've come across the problem before, before I spend ages sand-boxing stuff into my userspace so I can try to solve it. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this has been resolved. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate

Hi, Plastikspork! There seems to be a problem with {{Coordinate}} at List of karst springs? Can you look at it and fix it? Thanks a lot. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The template's doc page states: "To add coordinates in an article, please use {{coord}} instead." The {{coordinate}} template isn't intended for permanent use. It displays the {{coord}} syntax that should be used instead, so that you can copy-and-paste that into the article at the point where {{coordinate}} presently lies. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the template is helping you with the translation, but it needs your help. We could probably make these "substitutable". Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This would be great, because these templates are complex enough to be used on their own, and even more difficult to use when transferred from another wiki. Thanks for fixing the syntax in the list. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coupling

Plastikspork,
Please see Template talk:Infobox locomotive#Coupling. Peter Horn User talk 22:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not notice the typo. Peter Horn User talk 22:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this has been resolved. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bug

Plastikspork,
Please look at Template talk:Convert#Bushels. Neither "abbr=off" nor "adj=on" work. In fact the word "bushel" should appear at the very onset. It now appears as if "abbr=on" is accidentally in place. Peter Horn User talk 19:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TfD

Hi, I see you closed Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 3#Template:AcropolisCup as "delete", but you didn't delete the template? Any reason for this, or did you just forget? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I probably forgot. It looks like another admin took care of it. Thanks for checking! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Australian Hut

I've only just discovered, purely by accident, the TfD for {{Infobox Australian Hut}}. Unfortunately, like so many Australian templates that are nominated, it was nominated without bothering to even attempt to contact WP:AUSTRALIA. Not surprisingly, the same old names were involved (I'm not talking about you) and since the TfD they've done nothing as a result of the outcomes. I'm sorry for the rant but it's far too common. A simple post at WP:AWNB is surely not that difficult but some editors apparently see no need to collaborate with others. Anyway..... you closed with "The result of the discussion was merge or replace with {{Infobox mountain hut}} where feasible" but this really isn't a practical outcome. The original nomination was that the template is redundant to {{Infobox building}}, which it isn't, and this was opposed. Chris Cunningham's suggestion seemed to be along the lines of deleting the template completely, which was unhelpful. "It's hard to argue that any of the current transclusions would be worse off without an infobox" can really be applied to any article and the claim that "the buildings themselves seem not to be of particular note" is not correct. While I can't really attest to the notability of the other huts, Mawson's Huts are of particular note, not only to Australia, but to Antarctic exploration, and for this reason they are included on multiple heritage lists. However, Mawson's huts are at sea level and therefore {{Infobox mountain hut}} shouldn't be used in that article. The suggestion to use {{Infobox mountain hut}} appears to have been made without any real examination of the template. It is clearly targeted at mountain huts, specifically those in the high mountains in Europe. The template doesn't appear to be maintained; prior to "de-Germanification" by Thumperwad in March 2012, it was last edited in April 2011 after being created only in December 2010. The documentation is poor and needs a lot of work to make it understandable to those who aren't familiar with Europe. The template is only actually transcluded to a single article, Simony Hut, with the other 22 articles using {{Infobox Schutzhütte}}, which is a German language template. Both {{Infobox mountain hut}} and {{Infobox Schutzhütte}} rely on even more templates, such as {{AT-4}}, making them a bit of a mess. These issues aside, we still have the situation with Mawson's Huts not being a mountain hut. I have tried to use {{Infobox mountain hut}} but, at the moment it's not feasible. See testcases. There has been no attempt to modify Infobox mountain hut since the TfD and, until there is, it is not feasible to use it for any of the articles that currently use Infobox Australian Hut. It's not at all appropriate to use Infobox mountain hut for Mawson's Huts so Australian Hut has to remain alive for that article. In any case, there seems no justification in replacing one low-use template that is targeted at a specific geopolitical area with another low-use template targeted at a completely different area, especially when the second is no better than the first. Perhaps both templates should be merged to form a generic {{Infobox hut}}, but there doesn't seem any call for this. For these reason, I'm hoping you'll overturn your closure. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that Mountain hut won't work for all of them, which is why I said "where appropriate". My hope was that we could make this a more general template, and say call it {{Infobox hut}} or something, as you suggested. Maybe merge the mountain hut template with it at that location. Do you think that would be feasible? I know the template current says "being deleted" on it, but I should probably say "being merged", since that was the general consensus. I agree that there was no consensus to merge it with "building", but I thought there was a general consensus to merge it with other "hut templates". Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the only hut templates are {{Infobox Australian Hut}} and {{Infobox mountain hut}}, and it would certainly be desirable to merge them into {{Infobox hut}}. Articles using {{Infobox Schutzhütte}} need to be converted to use English and that template then dumped. With my limited experience in building templates, I'm not sure if merging the existing templates is actually feasible, but a new template using {{Infobox}} as its core is obviously possible. In doing so we can get rid of all the little flag templates used by {{Infobox mountain hut}}. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I will take a closer look over the next couple days. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a learning exercise, I've already started by rebuilding {{Infobox Australian Hut}}, using {{Infobox building}} for guidance. I've stolen the location map data from {{Infobox Australian place}} and tested the result with several articles. The various pages I've created in my userspace are listed at User:AussieLegend/Projects#Infobox hut. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]