Jump to content

User talk:Gonnym

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 78.54.186.169 (talk) at 06:58, 6 March 2019 (→Redirects to Infobox settlement: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WP:RMC

You may want to take a look at WP:RMC, as I've been forced to start another RM for a TV series that now has incomplete disambiguation based on something you tagged yesterday. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing "produced by" credit with executive producer (showrunner) credit

Hi Gonnym, I replied to your comment on the discussion in the Template talk:Infobox television episode. ATC . Talk 21:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking category question

Gonnym – so I've noticed there are a number of WP:BLPs (e.g. Karen David is the latest example that I've come across) that are using {{Infobox musical artist}} for subjects who are primarily known as actors, and thus instead should be using {{Infobox person}} with {{Infobox musical artist}} used as a module inside {{Infobox person}}. Do you think a tracking category for this could be created? If so, how hard would it be to "populate" such a category? Would it likely require a bot request?... Thanks for any thoughts you can provide about this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a hard one. Lets see what your answers are to these questions, maybe this will help. If a person has a category Category:British film actresses, does it always need {{Infobox person}}? If a person has {{Infobox musical artist}} and has |occupation=actress, singer, songwriter which includes "actress", does it always need {{Infobox person}}? If the answer is yes for the first, then I guess a bot request can be made to check if an article that has one of the required categories has infobox person or not. If the answer is yes for the second, then maybe a tracking category can be added to the template, that checks if it is nested or not. --Gonnym (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, the issue is – it's probably not always that simple. If a person is primarily known for being an actor, then {{Infobox person}} (with {{Infobox musical artist}} used as a module) would be a correct. But, if they're a "singer/musician, first", and an "actor, second" (e.g. Joss Stone), then I'd say {{Infobox musical artist}} could the correct one to use (though I note that even Lady Gaga uses {{Infobox person}} with {{Infobox musical artist}} used as a module...).
Thus, what I can tell you is that the articles for people that use {{Infobox musical artist}} as the "primary" infobox and have |occupation=singer, actor/actress will include some of the problematic articles, but would also include articles that are probably correct using {{Infobox musical artist}} as the main infobox... So this probably doesn't help much at all, does it? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, does not help. Code works in black and white (a Boolean) it is either true or false. If you can give me a scenario that always happens, I can see if we can make it work, but if not, there is nothing automatic about it. --Gonnym (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll try to start looking for commonalities, to see if something can be done... Failing that, I'll probably have to start my own "manual" list of these, because I keep coming across articles like this, where I don't feel like fixing the infobox issue when I come across it... and then I forget the articles at which it was an issue! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Can you look at the bottom of User talk:AnomieBOT before... ? Hhkohh (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hhkohh: Oh sorry, I didn't even realize. I was told that they should be subset and not deprecated. Should I revert all changes? --Gonnym (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are two choices: either add them to User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force temporarily to let bot continue substing or just remove |auto=yes from these templates (change from {{subst only|auto=yes}} to {{subst only}}) Hhkohh (talk) 10:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll remove the auto-yes part, as I don't know what the exact guidelines are for the use of AnomieBot. Thanks for letting me know of this issue, hope I didn't cause too much annoyance with this. --Gonnym (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just see DannyS712 (talk · contribs) helping subst these templates Hhkohh (talk) 10:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhkohh: Thank god for AWB - I've also filed Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 5 to help with this in the future. Do you want me to keep substing the ones listed at AnomieBOT's talk? --DannyS712 (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DannyS712, I will let Gonnym decide whether these templates should continue being substing or not Hhkohh (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of these templates were nominated for deletion but were reverted, when I asked what to do with them at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Template:WikiProject Botswana, I was told by @Amakuru that they should all be marked as subst only (based on Wikipedia:Templates for_discussion/Log/2017 July 19#Template:WikiProject Tanzania). He was referring to the Africa templates only, but I used that same rational to the other countries. So I think the proper thing is the subst. Please correct me if I'm wrong. --Gonnym (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: Well I'll keep substing them until someone objects --DannyS712 (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gonnym, why not add these to User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force to let bot do subst? Hhkohh (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just not sure how to proceed with that as I have only one TfD discussion to link to and only for one template. --Gonnym (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just like this edit see also this request case Hhkohh (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added them all to the list. Anything else I need to do? --Gonnym (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That should be all for these templates. If you're going to be auto-substing more templates in the future, please check the usage and add them to User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force preemptively to avoid the bot spamming its talk page again. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 18:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry about that Anomie, I didn't even know the bot did that, I thought it was a message for the users (I copied it from another wrapper template). Will make sure if I do more that I check and add. Thanks for the info everyone. --Gonnym (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why?!

Another fun one... [1]. Most with 1 transclusion. (I say most because I haven't checked every single one yet). *face palm* --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw some of those a while back. Those project members have hundreds of one-use templates. That is something I'm not going near. If you do go near it, make sure you read previous nominations, which I'm sure there are so you know what their arguments will be. --Gonnym (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I've been a previous nominator... Staying away because certain members love to scream and yell about it. Definitely a case of the person who yells most gets their way. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Flash Arrow characters

@Kailash29792 and Autumnking2012: I've been working to create a Flash version of List of recurring Arrow characters in my sandbox. I'm finished sorting it alphabetically, and now I'm going to go over the sources and validate what they actually give info for, fill in the story gaps and add missing sources. I do have a question for both of you - what do you think is better, to have all characters alphabetically (seen in the sandbox version A-Z) or, have all characters from the show's universe (Earth-1) sorted alphabetically by letter sections AND have characters from other earths separated (as can be seen by the bottom half of the sandbox). I'm actually leaning a bit to the Earth separation one as it seems to give more context to the characters. What do you think? --Gonnym (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting alphabetically is a good idea. Just go for it. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So the first option? --Gonnym (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Usually the parallel-Earth doppelgangers have less substantial roles and giving them separate sections seems too much.For example, E1 Hunter Zolomon appears in only one scene, so he should share a section with his more prominent E2 doppelganger. But Jay Garrick has a substantial role, so he should not share a section with Henry Allen. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Kailash that listing all of them alphabetically works best, with the most prominent character, regardless of Earth origin, listed, and their counterparts sharing the section. In cases of two prominent versions of the same character, give them separate listings, but keep one overall list. AutumnKing (talk) 09:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so one list it is. Regarding the non-primary versions, I'm a bit conflicted here. While the version of Zoom-1 version should really not have its own version as it was just less than a minute of him sitting on a bench, usually the other versions are much more prominent and are equivalent to other minor characters included in the list already. We also need to remember that the list is not a "list of actors and their roles" but a list of characters, and while they are named the same and played by the same actor, they aren't the same character. I guess it will be easier to see once the list is cleaned out more with more details and sources. --Gonnym (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow (season 6) episodes

Now that the season has its own article, can you please re-target the episodes using AWB? --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done! --Gonnym (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An WP:AWB request

Gonnym – when you get the chance, can you please update all pages currently linking to The Three Musketeers (1973 film) to link to The Three Musketeers (1973 live-action film)? Then The Three Musketeers (1973 film) can be converted to a redirect to the disambig. page, as per WP:INCDAB. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On it! Can you move File:Three Musketeers 1974.jpg to File:Three Musketeers 1973.jpg? --Gonnym (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since it was used on a template, a lot of links still say they point to it. Need for them to refresh, but I think I'm done. --Gonnym (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we need a WP:File mover for that. The instructions are here – Commons:File renaming. I'll put in a request... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Hello. "Walking" on the English Wikipedia noticed Template:Infobox sports team. Question. Will this template be further connected with templates of specific marged clubs in the future? I mean the following templates: Template:Infobox football club, Template:Infobox basketball club, Template:Infobox KHL team, Template:Infobox NHL team and others. Bogolub (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no idea. I've never taken a look at these templates to answer that, but without looking I can tell you that a lot of editors on en.wiki don't !vote with technical understanding, but with their emotions, which makes dealing with these kind of mergers very hard. --Gonnym (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alarm für Cobra 11 – Die Autobahnpolizei season articles, revisted

OK, I believe I've now fixed all of these. (And Category:Television articles with incorrect naming style is now below 90 entries!!) However, you may want to go through these with WP:AWB and "correct" the capitalizations of all of the links, as I certainly did not catch all of the links using "(Season [x])" when going through them – I would think WP:AWB could make quick work of those, though... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note also – I think there still might be a few "anime"(?)-type articles listed under Category:Television articles with incorrect naming style – e.g. List of Mega Man Star Force episodes (original series), List of Mega Man Star Force episodes (Tribe), List of Ojamajo Doremi (1999) episodes, List of Where Is My Friend's Home episodes (2015). FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great job! I'm not too worries about those links using the old redirect, as we have so many of those still lying around. Wish that could be asked of a bot, but I'm sure people will use the "cosmetic" argument for that. Some guidelines I'll just never understand who the people endorsing them are. --Gonnym (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two more obvious candidates for RMs are Double Dare and The Saturday Show. But, like I said – I've sworn off initiating RMs for a while, so it won't be me doing it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll slowly chip away at moving what we have in the various lists until we are left with only RMs. That way it will be easier to see what really is the problem. We still have a ton of easy moves left in the various cats. --Gonnym (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Effing redirects...

I meant to tag {{volleyballbox2}}. Thanks for catching that! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parasparam

Hi, I just dropped an answer to your query on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Regards. Kintaro (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't move it as an admin has salted the title. --Gonnym (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:*mp

Hi, you had added a speedy deletion request for {{*mp}}. Although it was deleted, I have undeleted it. It needs to stay because otherwise, the layouts of historical versions of WP:Selected anniversaries subpages get completely messed up. For example, without the template being there, [2] would look like...

Template:*mp 961 – The Muslim Emirate of Crete was conquered by the Byzantine Empire. Template:*mp 1447 – Tomaso Parentucelli became Pope Nicholas V. Template:*mp 1836 – Texas Revolution: Mexican forces captured the Alamo (pictured) in San Antonio from the Texans after a 13-day siege. Template:*mp 1913 – First Balkan War: The Greek army captured Bizani Fortress, near Ioannina, from the Ottomans. Template:*mp 1930 – Organized by the Communist International, hundreds of thousands of people in major cities around the world marched to protest mass unemployment associated with the Great Depression. Template:*mp 1975 – The Zapruder film of the assassination of John F. Kennedy was broadcast on television for the first time.

I even left a note on the template page itself in a noinclude block. Did you not see it? Or did you just decide to ignore it? I really don't understand the thought process here. —howcheng {chat} 17:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That comment was raised in the discussion and the closing admin decided to still delete it. I'm not sure why you think it is ok as an admin to bypass the TfD result. All templates that are deleted break old revisions. So what? --Gonnym (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because WP:IAR. That TFD entry had 3 comments on it. If I'd known about it and had been able to contribute to it, who knows how it might have turned out? Let me turn this around: Why does it matter to you if this template exists or not? —howcheng {chat} 19:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to clarify the situation by listing the template at TfD. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox settlement wrappers

You have been involved in previous similar discussions. A new batch of wrappers has been proposed for replacement: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 28#Infobox settlement wrappers 77.191.81.0 (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Double Dare (Nickelodeon game show)#Requested move 5 March 2019

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Double Dare (Nickelodeon game show)#Requested move 5 March 2019. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Redirects to Infobox settlement

I think they should all be deleted. I would not start that discussion now, but I think it should be done. Reason: If redirects exists, there is no system to prevent editors from using them and such usage is not easily detected. There are 65 as of writing, [3], but there could easily be several thousand, since there are thousands of subclasses of territorial entities and as one can see by the insonsistent naming in the list of current redirects, that can be doubled several times: e.g. word order, capitalization, usage of abbreviations etc. 78.54.186.169 (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gonnym&oldid=886432990"