User talk:Plastikspork/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12


Infobox game AKA

Hi, you moved AKA/Synonyms(s) parm in {{Infobox game}} to the top, IMO that's not a great move and I'd like to see it back to its former position near/at the bottom. I added the AKA parm, my idea was to model the same parm in {{Infobox chess opening}} where it is on bottom (example Ruy Lopez). I know the MoS states that article subject title synonyms should appear upfront in the lead, however I don't think paralleling that in the Infobox is such a great idea. (Why? Because the game Infobox is for obtaining quick facts about a game, and putting a potentially long list of synonyms in the first position is out of context to that purpose, and even obscures it, for example see Bughouse chess or Nine Men's Morris. IMO a list of synonyms toward the bottom of the Infobox doesn't make any problem and is more appropriate there since in context, and less distracting to the pertinent facts about the subject game already presented.) Thanks for your consider, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the near-to-bottom location per WP:BRD. Another article w/ numerous gamename synonyms is Tic-tac-toe. Again I think an upfront list of synonyms in Infobox is putting miscellany before pertinent game info inconsistent w/ purpose of Infobox. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
(tps) the same could be said for the lead sentence, but we still list the other names there. you should start a thread in a more central location if you don't like the guidelines. Frietjes (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
If you'll notice, I already did mention I was aware of MoS and how it applies to synonyms in the lead. But I'm not aware of any MoS applying to order of presentation of information pieces in Infoboxes. (I didn't say that I "didn't like the guidelines". You seem to be assuming the MoS guideline for lead automatically propogates onto the Infobox, which is a different thing and for a different purpose, and I think that assumption is a mistake, inappropriate, and does havoc to Infobox presentations to many games articles. How about a little thoughtful discussion before such changes?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Update: I've changed the parm name from "other_names" to "AKA-2", in order to avoid confusion. (They are the same things: synonyms. They differ only by position in the list of Infobox informations attributes. To identify them with different names is misleading and just solicits future potential confusion.) Do you want to discuss this? (Is your forte games? Or self-acclaimed "MoS experts"? It makes a difference for any potential discussion.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:List of Arcade Video Games Navbox

There appears to be no discussion happening elsewhere. I have asked Frietjes(F) to provide me with the guideline that supports F's view on placement. F has been unresponsive here, so I placed a note on F's page to draw F's attention to the ongoing discussion here. If F fails to provide the guideline soon then I will have to start an RfC to settle the matter. My intention is to revert one of the 2 articles that F has placed on this page and create an RfC to ask which is the better. When that RfC concludes then I will alter the guidelines that seem to apply accordingly. I specifically put an oppose vote in the hope that you or any closing editor would know not to remove the template immediately and that discussion is ongoing. I really can do with at least 1 of the templates remaining. I would further point out that the template is unused because F removed all of the transclusions and promptly nominated the template for deletion, all without informing me. Op47 (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Portal images

Hi Plastikspork, and thanks for closing the portal images TfD. If you're going through all the images manually, don't bother - I have a list of all the pages here which I can convert and run through Twinkle's batch delete function. Should save you some RSI. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: I use User:Animum/massdelete.js with Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Portal/Images, so it's no problem. I am just checking for stale transclusions right now. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutral notice

This is a neutral notice that an RfC has been opened at an article which you have edited within the past year. It is at Talk:Clint Eastwood#8 children by 6 women. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox television advert

possibly history merge template:Infobox television advert with template:infobox advertising since the current version is basically a continuation of the television advert box. Frietjes (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Done! Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You're getting tons of notifications

Some time back, you and your bot tagged 200+ templates for deletion after someone else nominated them for deletion. Since the discussion got closed as "keep", I've used rollback because it's the only way of removing all of them without taking hours and hours of manual editing; I removed one manually because you fixed a problem while adding the template, but I rolled back the rest because they only added the template. This note is just an apology for having to use the tool and a request that you understand why I've used it. Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Meant to say this earlier but forgot — thanks so much for running SporkBot! It's enough work just to rollback 300 of its edits, and that's just one click per page; I can't imagine the work that it would take to tag all of those templates manually. Nyttend (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
No problem, looks like everything has been sorted out. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Fb team Atlético de Alagoinhas

Hello! Thanks for the deletion, and thanks for the tip about the template that was still used. I have a doubt here, too... can the next similar fb templates for Speedy Deletion, due to consensus? The third user supporting suggested it on the last nomination here .Gno- (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If you have a new batch of unused fb templates, I can delete them citing the prior discussions. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for you help on the horse coat colors infobox. Can you make one more tweak so the infobox title is in a little larger font and centered? I can't figure out how to make that happen. Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 04:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Done! Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of content from {{Fr icon}}

In this edit to the template {{Fr icon}}, you deliberately removed the helpful note for editors warning not to place categories and interwiki links onto the template, but rather to correctly place these on the template's documentation subpage (i.e. {{Fr icon/doc}}). This note is placed at least in some form on countless templates across Wikipedia, completely regardless of the protection level, history, and purpose of each template it is placed upon. Despite Nyttend's reversion of your first unexplained edit, which was your first instance of such removal of content, you failed to provide any further explanation for the next edit in which the same removal of the note was made. It would be most appropriate if you would either describe the justification for your edits or revert them entirely. Thank you. — |J~Pæst|  23:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The prior edit was removing the TfD notice, see the thread above. This template can only be edited by administrators, who know where to add the categories, and I was making the format the same as all the others. However, if you really want me to restore the comment, I can do so and then get back to worrying about the WP:BIKESHED. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Noodle and Template:Pasta : recent edits

Could I ask that you look in at Template:Noodle, Template:Pasta and User talk:Enok#Noodles vs pasta. There has been a long standing lack of consensus concerning what is a noodle and what is pasta and which is the super/sub set of the other. I feel that the new editor to this problem is a bit contentious. Thanks! jmcw (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


Since subpages don't exist in mainspace, Jews/infobox has no connection to Jews. Can you move it back to Talk:Jews/infobox, so it does qualify as a subpage? Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you put the template's old talk page there. Can you find somewhere to stick it in talk space? Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Historically, a redirected subpage was the method for keeping the attribution history. If there is a new method, please point me to the policy page or discussion. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
That's still the case, but they're usually kept in the talk space rather than article space. Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:U. S. Network Shows templates

I believe you have move protected Template:U. S. Network Shows templates. I think the page should be moved in keeping with the most recent edit to the page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


Deleting templates like Familypedia is just vandalism. Richard Tol (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


Hi, this is to inform you, as a contributor to Template:..., about a discussion at Template talk:... regarding the purpose of this template. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks on Texas highways

We have fixed page "List of state highways in Texas" with fewer templates to finally save the entire page and edit-preview within 35 seconds (rather than need 90), but saving an edit typically shows a "Wikimedia Foundation" warning, which is better than not saving at all! I was somewhat anxious to fix the Texas-highway pages because I live in Texas where those roads loom large in daily life; however, I see the daily pageviews average just 15 per day, so there is time to improve the speed next month. Anyway, thanks again for noting the page had hit "Node-count limit exceeded" and cratered, but fixed now. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for the quick fix to the Historical populations template and removing those bad links from the Most Wanted list! —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

{{James Arthur}}

Hello, Plastikspork. I see you deleted Template:James Arthur; could you please restore it because the concern raised at TfD of having fewer than five links has been resolved? There are currently five links that can be put on it, and those are James Arthur, Impossible, You're Nobody 'til Somebody Loves You, James Arthur (album) and Wrecking Ball. Thank you.--Launchballer 22:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

(now at {{James Arthur}})

@Launchballer: I pasted the contents of the deleted template above. The only link that you listed that isn't there is Wrecking Ball, which seems to have a very weak connection with James Arthur, since he didn't release it as a single or song on an album? Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Arthur sung it on Radio Hamburg and Alonzo Holt got hold of it and helped it hit the charts.--Launchballer 07:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Talk archive navigation

Template:Talk archive navigation has been nominated for merging with Template:Automatic archive navigator. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox video game

I made some changes to template:Infobox video game, so this work. I will look through your edit history to see if there are more. thank you for cleaning up the list markup! Frietjes (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't tell me what i can and can't do. -John Locke — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

TfD closure process clarification

Hi, as somebody who has closed TfDs recently, this is to inform you of Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Clarifying the closure process for all outcomes other than "keep". --Redrose64 (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


Any chance you can replace all of those unsightly boxes in Jinotega Department etc with infobox settlement?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I don't really have time at the moment, but you should try asking one of the other contributors to WP:List of infoboxes, since there appears to be an effort to standardize things. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Notify of new template that can be used for TFD relistings

Hello Plastikspork,

As I see that you close the majority of the TfD discussions, I wanted to let you know of a template that was recently created for WP:TFD discussions that may be helpful for relistings: {{Tfd relisted}}. This template is basically a version of Template:Rfd relisted that was made and adjusted to be used specifically for relisting TfD discussions. Hope this template can be found helpful for TfD. Steel1943 (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

@Steel1943: If I recall, the bot currently requires substitution of the 'tfd top' and 'tfd bottom' templates to recognized that a discussion is closed. I have a relisting script that I use, so I won't need the new template. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
That's a bit different. I'll have to ask the bot owner about the intricacies of TFD. I would have thought the bots here would face been programmed similar to RfD, but apparently not. Thanks for the info as well. Steel1943 (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


Hello. I noticed that you closed the discussion about {{JoeWiki}} as "no consensus". However, editor Nikkimaria, who was the only opposition to keeping the template, has been removing it from all G.I. Joe articles anyway, citing WP:ELNO. Since there was no consensus to delete it, is there any precedent for me to re-add the template to those articles? Fortdj33 (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

@Fortdj33: I would suggest opening a thread in a more central location to discuss it as an external link, like say the Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard? It sounds like a disagreement over the interpretation of WP:ELNO, which should be discussed with broader input. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

My talkpage

Your bot tried to archive on my talkpage, and for reasons I do not know tried to put it into archive2. That waa not the right archive, and it put in a lot of "null" edits. Just thought I'd let you know. thanks. 7&6=thirteen () 01:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

@7&6=thirteen: If you review the edit, you will see that the bot changed the transclusions of deleted templates to simple links to deleted templates. This does not change the appearance of the page, but does remove the transcluded templates from Wikipedia:Database reports/Transclusions of deleted templates. This report is currently polluted with loads of these, which makes it harder to find the more serious ones in articles. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Triple image/double image

Thanks for closing the TfD. What happens now? I've already set up {{double image/sandbox}} and {{triple image/sandbox}} if that helps. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I could have my bot replace them, or would it be possible to actually merge the templates allowing for a redirect to work? If it would be possible, but really complicated, then I would say that it's not worth the effort, and I can just have a bot replace them. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
My intention was simply to copy {{double image/sandbox}} and {{triple image/sandbox}} over the existing {{double image}} and {{triple image}}, thus converting them into wrappers and so achieving the merge. If people complain, it's easily revertible. It has the advantage that those who prefer the old syntax can continue to do so. I've not done that myself because I'm involved. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Oh, I see. I will "make it so" momentarily. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

Dobos cake (Gerbeaud Confectionery Budapest Hungary).jpg 7&6=thirteen () has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen () 19:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

A TFD you closed

I'm talking about this one[1]. The result was delete, which while was right due to the discussion, happened without the various Wikiprojects being informed and there is at least one issue with the new box per this[2]. I have a concern also- wasn't the TFD supposed to be a merge of sport horse to thoroughbred racehorse not the other way around? Can I suggest the TFD be set aside and that this be discussed more thoroughly first....William 20:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment about location map at Infobox body of water

Would love your comments about adding a location map to the {{Infobox body of water}} template at this discussion on the template's Talk page. --papageno (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Grey Cup host venues

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Grey Cup host venues has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 117Avenue (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Sammus Theory. 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.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:The Secret Handshake. 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. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

now restored since it has more links, let me know if this is a problem. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Ima Robot. 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. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Aranda. 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. Jax 0677 (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

now restored since it has more links, let me know if this is a problem. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Morningwood. 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. Jax 0677 (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


Hi Plastikspork. I think your 30 September 2013 close of Template:Infobox medical condition TfD[3] as redirect after merging was consistent with the discussion. However, a 24 November 2013 request at the Help Desk[4] raised an issue with using an infobox called "Template:Infobox disease" in the Autism article, which classifies Autism as a disorder, not a disease. That issue was not considered at the Infobox medical condition TfD and looked to see whether it was considered elsewhere in Wikipedia, but did not find any such discussion. I would like to propose at TfD to rename Template:Infobox disease to Template:Infobox medical condition. Since it impacts your recent TFD close regarding Template:Infobox medical condition, would you be OK with this? Thanks. - Jreferee (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

@Jreferee: Fine with me! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Templates for The Secret Handshake and Morningwood

Good evening, before going to WP:DRV, I wanted to ask why Template:The Secret Handshake was deleted, even though it has 5 links [ Luis Dubuc, Antarctica (The Secret Handshake album), One Full Year, My Name Up in Lights and Night & Day (The Secret Handshake album) ]. Luis was also a member of Mystery Skulls and Thirty Called Arson, which may be of interest to readers.

Template:Ima Robot had 4 musicians and 3 albums before being deleted.

Template:Morningwood had 7 musicians, 2 albums and one song before being deleted.

Template:Aranda was deleted with no comments at all after the relist.

Could you reply about these as well?

Also, since User:Lankiveil is on a break, if you can comment on User_talk:Lankiveil#The_Sammus_Theory it would be greatly appreciated. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like this has been resolved? Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Reply - I am interested to learn why you closed Template:Ima Robot and Template:Morningwood if both have more than 5 links. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I see no support for keeping those templates in the associated discussion. Hence, closed as delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox sport or racehorse/old

could you move the history for this old version behind the infobox sport horse redirect? it makes the history easier to follow. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, could you just restore the old infobox sport horse and move this version to Infobox racehorse? Sport horses have riders, not jockeys, (and the jockey link isn't suitable for sport horse riders) and all my previous comments still apply. Once again, something got broken that didn't need fixing. We may need to tune up the sport horse box, but making it a race horse one is useless. Montanabw(talk) 19:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
per my comments on the project talk page, no one has provided any evidence that anything has been broken. the old sport horse infobox did not have any rider or jockey parameter, and the current version allows for either rider or jockey, depending on the context. so again, nothing has been broken, and nothing actually changed. Frietjes (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The main problem is that it's a race horse infobox, most of the stuff in there is irrelevant to sport horses. Truth is, there is an argument to be made for tossing the old sport horse infobox and just putting all of them into infobox named horse, which is more general. Maybe what I'll do (in all the spare time I don't have) is see if we can get a sense of what is best at the wikiprojects and then do a new move request. Montanabw(talk) 21:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thoroughbred race horse

Plastikspork I wish you had asked at WP Horse racing about the infobox move. The Sport horse infobox was the wrong one. The Race horse box was transcluded into thousands and thousands of articles and contains critical information on race records. The sport horse box is more of a catchall for horses that don't race, such as in the Olympics. Can you please restore? A better thing would be a move to infobox race horse, which would encompass non-thoroughbred race horses such as harness racing animals. Montanabw(talk) 18:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I will rename it. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
May I suggest that you reopen the discussion instead? The two affected WikiProjects weren't notified of the TfD. It would be have been good for anyone who cares to have had a chance to express an opinion before the changes were made; it'd probably still be good to have that opportunity, and then make whatever changes the consensus requires. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it's all getting moved back to where it was before whoever it was started "fixing" things. There is a discussion open at WP Horse racing, FWIW. No one has yet objected to the TB racehorse move to just "racehorse" and, a while back, no one objected to renaming WP TB horse racing to just horse racing. So I think all's well. Probably a good argument to merge the old sport horse infobox with infobox named horse but I can't even remember why the Sport horse box was forked off, so that's a different issue, I guess. Montanabw(talk) 00:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...

Bolas navideñas.jpg FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Human intelligence topics

can you history merge this with Template:Human intelligence? thank you. Frietjes (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, final cleanup

The move to infobox racehorse has been very helpful. I redirected infobox sport horse to go to infobox named horse. Now, the trick is to get the transclusions straightened out: I took a quick whack at it, but there are about 2000 articles that claim to be transcluded to the old infobox sport horse, except most of them actually use nfobox thoroughbred racehorse, which, from all I can see, properly redirects to infobox racehorse, so not sure why the transclusions still show up on the sport horse one (?) My goal is to go through all the ACTUAL articles that use the sport horse infobox and edit the infoboxes to point to either infobox racehorse (mostly the Standardbred harness racing horses are affected there) or, for the Olympic horses, to infobox named horse (there's a maybe-argument to keep the sport horse infobox unique, but we have to get all the racehorses out of there first to see what's left, eliminating the transclusions will help.) Am I making ANY kind of sense here? Thanks for what help you can offer! Montanabw(talk) 05:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The cache has probably updated by now, so any transclusions you see will be true transclusions. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)



After closing Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 May 8#Template:SupremeCourtListRow, you renamed it into talk space without a redirect. I'm wondering why you did that. Its new talk page location has since been blanked, and I'm now wondering if there's any reason to keep that. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Probably to preserve the appearance of a talk page discussion. However, if that is no longer necessary, then it can certainly go. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Double image and Template:Triple image

Hello, Plastik

I think we need to talk about your closing decision at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 7, whose templates are now in the holding cell. It is impossible to merge both templates into {{Multiple image}}. There is significant parameter mismatch problem as follows:

{{double image {{triple image
|Image 1
|Size 1
|Image 2
|Size 2
|Image 1
|Size 1
|Image 2
|Size 2
|Left caption
|Right caption
|Left alt text
|Right alt text
|Image 3
|Size 3
|Left caption
|Center caption
|Right caption
|Left alt text
|Center alt text
|Right alt text
}} }}

Then, you have to account for {{Multiple image}}'s own parameters. Only LUA code can reliably do the matching but that's not called a merger or template anymore; it is a rewrite in Module namespace. Given the fact that {{Double image}} has 2,686 transclusions, we cannot do anything without stepping on toes of thousands of angry Wikipedians.

If bureaucracy is very important, I can merge {{Double image}} but {{Triple image}} with 190 transclusion is a no go. However, the most performance- and compatibility-friendly decision is to overturn your closing decision to "Keep; too incompatible to merge; consider deprecation".

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: After the TfD closed, I replaced the internal code with {{multiple image}}. I am perfectly happy if that's as far as it goes for the moment. The current versions can be substituted if someone wants to orphan them, but I agree there is no obvious way to make them work as redirects to {{multiple image}}. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Very well. Then I assume I can transclude your message and clear them off the holding cell? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Modules and infoboxes

Hi, Please could you make the edits suggested at Template talk:Infobox horseracing personality#Modules (preferably in two lots, for clarity). I'll observe them, and know how to do the same for other templates, in future. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Reformatting external links in basketball bio infobox

Happy New Year! User:Frietjes has suggested you may be able to assist with the problem at User_talk:Frietjes#Reformatting external links in basketball bio infobox. Much appreciated if you can comment there. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment

Please comment here. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox dam cleanup

Hi. You're receiving this message because you are a major contributor to {{Infobox dam}}. You opinion on this cleanup proposal is very much appreciated. Best regards, Rehman 14:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

LDS Infobox

I was just reading the discussion for and against keeping the LDS infobox and I noticed that there was 3 Keeps and 3 Deletes, how does that equate to a delete? Not trying to be a squeaky wheel, just wanting to understand why! Thanks, speednat (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

(tps) seems you forgot the nominator (Justin) and COGDEN, and in case anyone else is wondering, the discussion here. Frietjes (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
That's correct. Feel free to take it to DRV if you the discussion was not properly closed. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Largest cities of Kosovo

I think that consensus for deletion of this template (link to archived deletion discussion that you closed) was not respected and this template has been recreated without following appropriate procedure. Am I right? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be moved to a List like article: it is not typical for templates to have references. --Perkohesisht ai i vjetri (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
@Antidiskriminator: Your best option would be to open a new WP:TFD. I believe the template has been changed substantially since the last closure. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Copy of a deleted template

Can I have a copy of Template:Oklahoma City NASL 2015 sent to my e-mail so I have a base to recreate it later on down the road once more information is out.--Dcheagletalkcontribs 00:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

@Dcheagle: Done, or I can move it to userspace. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The copy to my email is just fine thank you.--Dcheagletalkcontribs 00:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Another dashes.js patch required please

Right now, the dashes script is causing problems such as this to things inside {{DNB cite}}. Could you possibly adjust the script so that it skips those too? Thanks, -- Ohc ¡digame! 16:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@Ohconfucius: I will see what I can do. Hopefully I won't break anything! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, seems to be behaving so far. Thanks for your help. -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox oil field

Hi, Plastikspork. I left this message originally at Jimp's talk page but maybe you could help. There seems to be a problem with {{Infobox oil field}} (field:est_oil_t). For some reasons this field has conversion error (e.g. see the infobox at Gunashli oilfield). I don't know how to fix it. Another issue is that this field uses for conversion only the standard API value of 33.4. However, some fields have a different API value. Is it possible to add the API field to the template and to use that value (if the API value is not defined, the value 33.4 should be used instead)? Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@Beagel: Looks like this has been fixed? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the template was fixed by user:Frietjes and user:Jimp. Beagel (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Bot assistance

Hi Plastikspork. Would you be able assist on doing a bot run per this discussion? To put it briefly, we need to make this change, and to facilitate that, we need a bot sweep to do the following changes to articles currently using {{Infobox dam}}:

  • alt into image_alt
  • caption into image_caption
  • location_map_width into location_map_size
  • location_map_text into location_map_caption
  • official_name into name_official
  • locale into location
  • status=U into status=UC
  • began into construction_began
  • commissioned and open, into opening
  • closed and decommissioned, into demolished
  • type to dam_type
  • crosses to dam_crosses
  • length to dam_length
  • height to dam_height
  • height_foundation to dam_height_foundation
  • height_thalweg to dam_height_thalweg
  • crest_width to dam_width_crest
  • base_width to dam_width_base
  • crest_elev to dam_elevation_crest
  • volume to dam_volume
  • spillways to spillway_count
  • reservoir to res_name
  • reservoir_capacity to res_total_capacity
  • active_capacity to res_active_capacity
  • inactive_capacity to res_inactive_capacity
  • reservoir_catchment to res_catchment
  • reservoir_surface to res_surface
  • reservoir_length to res_max_length
  • reservoir_max_width to res_max_width
  • reservoir_max_depth to res_max_depth
  • reservoir_elevation to res_elevation
  • tidal_range to res_tidal_range
  • com into plant_commission
  • decom into plant_decommission
  • conventional, run_of_river, tide, and pumped_storage into plant_type
  • turbines to plant_turbines
  • installed_capacity to plant_capacity
  • average_annual_gen and annual_generation, into plant_annual_gen
  • url to website

Waiting for your reply. Best, Rehman 11:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

@Rehman: I can certainly have a bot update the syntax, but it would extremely helpful to have the template support both the old and new syntax for a transition period. The bot runs at a finite speed, and changes are frequently reverted as they may be mixed up with other more controversial changes (or vandalism). Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
That would be great. I don't think there would be many cases as you mentioned, or any at all for that matter, as these are only dam articles. Worst case, any such instances could be manually attended to. Do let me know when you would do this, so that I could adjust my time to update the template immediately before or during the bot run. (I cant be online during 6am to 4pm UTC+05:30; working hours).See also. Best, Rehman 11:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox settlement

Hi Plastikspork. Could you please help fix the template infobox formatting on Hargeisa? Many of its parameters and fields were removed, including the official, other and natives names, the image skyline, the pushpin map and location, and the country and region parameters [5]. It looks pretty bare now, and it's difficult to make out where exactly the place is located. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

(tps) I seriously doubt that was WP:AutoEd, the edit should be reverted. Frietjes (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


could you history merge Yemeni-American and Yemeni American? Frietjes (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


As a frequent user of WP:TFD, and someone who understands how navboxes work, I wonder if you'd like to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Agriculture#Breed navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You may also be interested to join WP:WikiProject Navigation templates, where we could centralise these sorts of discussions. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox headline and Infobox line2

these were moved to Template:Polish Clan line and Template:Polish Clan headline, but should be deleted per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 27. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

World Wilderness Congress

Can you add the relevant infobox to this? It will look better with one and the logo I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Try {{Infobox recurring event}}? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Also can you replace Crowne Plaza Hotel (Lebanon) with infobox building and add a pin map?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Go for it! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Template deletions

Per step one of the Deletion Review process, please explain how your deletions of Template:NGOLinks, Template:GovLinks and Template:JudgeLinks followed Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Reasons to delete a template. Please answer here. Thank you. (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe you are looking for WP:DRV. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Militärische Einheit

Please could you review Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 30#Template:Infobox Militärische Einheit, which you closed? The template is unchanged, still used in articles, and still listed as being under discussion at TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Likewise, discussion of several others, on the same page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I'm not sure what you are requesting. It looks like "Infobox Militärische Einheit" is a wrapper, and the rest that have not been deleted are in the holding cell. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
This appears to have been dealt with since I wrote the above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Indian jurisdiction

Hello, Plastikspork

The oldest item of the TfD Holding Cell, {{Infobox Indian jurisdiction}} is finally ready for deletion. I've migrated all its transclusion is main namespace and all of those in the user namespace that mattered. (It felt like 6000+ transclusion. My edit cout was 12000-ish and now it is 19200.) There is one in Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Talinsfadasporia which I cannot touch. (Don't have edit permission there.) There are also 129 others is the user name space that are definitely not worth migrating. (They have become articles.) [Update: Migrated them too.]

Oh, and please don't forget its subpages.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Er? Plastik? Do you read me? Over. Codename Lisa (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
@Codename Lisa: Nice work! I thought that would never be finished. I go ahead and delete it, but I may leave a redirect behind for a bit to help editors find the right template. Thanks for the tedious work! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


The deletion of GovLinks seemed extremely premature -- there was a lively discussion in CongLinks that related to it. By deleting the entire page, all discussion is cut off. If I had thought anyone would do that, I would have voted "KEEP" separately, as I did on CongLinks. By deleting the template, hundreds of valid links got removed -- what is the goal of doing that, so I can work around it? Or how do I restore GovLinks? JesseAlanGordon (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

@JesseAlanGordon: Yes, those were separate discussions, as the templates were listed separately. Given the number of editors who commented in the CongLinks discussion, and the lack of any support in the GovLinks discussion, I would suggest taking it to WP:DRV. Reversing my closure of the GovLinks discussion would bring a large number of editors to my talk page complaining about the reversal, so it would be better to simply take it to DRV. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It says on WP:DRV "discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review." I am hereby trying to resolve the matter with you. I suggest un-deleting GovLinks and having a proper discussion, one which is prefaced with "I will delete GovLinks on this date if I do not hear otherwise." I suspect you will hear a LOT otherwise. I recognize this will bring a large number of editors to your talk page complaining about the deletion -- not about the reversal -- but, well, you're in the middle of it one way or the other! JesseAlanGordon (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I am unaware how one would undo a closure. If you brief me on that (I looked over your history; there is no simple reversion like for a normal page edit, I don't think), I will do the reversal and take the complaints from the large number of editors that you predict will come (and which I do not think will come). I will justify what I have done on grounds that closing the GovLinks favors incumbents, whereas Wikipedia is supposed to treat candidates equally; closing GovLinks is about as much "incumbency protection" as I have ever seen in any political circles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JesseAlanGordon (talkcontribs) 16:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The template GovLinks was not deleted because of "incumbency protection" but because it violated WP:EL by ushering in a crowd of links without subjecting them one by one to increasingly critical evaluation, as is specified in WP:EL. CongLinks is guilty of the exact same violation, so that is why it is surprising to see the different result of its separate deletion discussion. Regarding "incumbency protection", that sort of argument falls apart when you realize that it's impossible to anticipate the party or the politics of the incumbent to be notionally protected. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
There was a "proper discussion" about GovLinks. It was posted publicly; it was plainly defined as a proposal to delete; and it ran for three weeks before closure. (It also included a direct link to the CongLinks discussion.) SteveStrummer (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The matter was discussed publicly primarily under CongLinks, where I voted to NOT delete, as did the majority of other people discussing the matter. Then both CongLinks and GovLinks were both stripped. Whagt I mean by "incumbency protection" is that the existing links in GovLinks and CongLinks, after your stripping them, all work for incumbents, and mostly do not work for challengers. For example, the links and the "Biographical Directory of the United States Congress" only work for elected members of the House, and not their challengers. The FEC links only work later in the process, typically after the establishment candidate has won the primary. I am most interested in the VoteSmart and OnTheIssues since they most assist challengers and non-establishment candidates. My intent is to restore those two, and if you want to have a discussion after the fact on the grounds above, so be it. I read in great detail the WP:EL and other guidelines and it is my opinion -- and the opinion of the majority of Wikipedians who contributed to the discussion on CongLinks -- that those two should be restored, and perhaps a couple others. I do concur that the news & entertainment links were too plentiful and I did contribute on CongLinks that they should be trimmed. But the political links should be restored -- I think you two above are ignoring the reality of the politics here -- what you have done directly benefits incumbents and establishment candidates at the expense of challengers and outsiders. That is an implicit goal of Wikipedia -- to help those outside the mainstream establishment -- even if it is not in the explicit guidelines. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have initiated a formal discussion on Template:CongLinks to un-delete the list of inappropriately deleted links. I will repeat my post here, and encourage any readers here to "vote" by providing an explicit yes/no to each link. I will summarize the links and act according to that summary. The original deletions did NOT do that -- they deleted wholesale many more links than those for which there was a consensus for deletion. I will follow the consensus decisions in two weeks' time, on March 15, 2014. Here are the details..... I concur with Plastikspork's Jan. 24 conclusion that "The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete, but there appears to be consensus to limit/shorten the number of links." So the question becomes, "Which links should be deleted, and which should not?" Here is a summary or each link as discussed in the originating discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_3#Template:CongLinks : (Yes = keep it; Lean-Yes = reservations but keep it; Maybe = either way; Lean-No = reservations but delete it; No = delete it)

  • ballotpedia: Lean-Yes 1, Maybe 1, No 1
  • bloomberg: Lean-No 1, No 1
  • congbio: Yes 2
  • c-span: Lean-No 1, No 1
  • fec: Lean-Yes 1
  • findagrave: Lean-Yes 1
  • followthemoney: Lean-Yes 1
  • govtrack: Lean-Yes 1
  • guardian: Lean-No 1, No 1
  • imdb: No 3
  • legistorm: Lean-Yes 1
  • nndb: No 3
  • nyt: Yes 1, Lean-No 1, No 1
  • opencong: Lean-Yes 1
  • opensecrets: Lean-Yes 1
  • ontheissues: Yes 1, Lean-Yes 1
  • rose: Lean-No 1, No 1
  • votesmart: Yes 1, Lean-Yes 1
  • worldcat: No 2
  • wsj: Lean-No 1, No 1
  • washpo: Yes 1, Lean-No 1, No 1

I would describe that as a consensus to remove Bloomberg, C-Span, Guardian, IMDB, NNDB, Rose, Worldcat, and WSJ. That is certainly in line with the idea of shortening the list, and removing irrelevant links. I am hereby starting a discussion to more formally gather a consensus, or at least a majority opinion. I intend to undo the deletion of CongLink templates for any which do NOT have consensus to remove. The overall conclusion of the previous discussion was "shorten but do not delete", which to me implies "discuss which to remove but unless there is near-consensus to remove, then keep the link." I made the list above by interpreting people's comments. Let's be more explicit this time. I suggest that participants write up a list like mine below, and I'll tally it up after a week or two like I did above. My votes, and a model for how I'd like others to offer their opinions (I added "Unknown" to the choices above, for ones on which you are unfamiliar):

  • ballotpedia: Lean-Yes: I'd rather see this listed as a "sister organization" but otherwise keep it.
  • bloomberg: No
  • congbio: Yes
  • c-span: No
  • fec: Yes
  • findagrave: No
  • followthemoney: Yes
  • govtrack: Lean-Yes (it's only for current incumbents, so only of limited value for political researchers like me)
  • guardian: No
  • imdb: No
  • legistorm: Unknown
  • nndb: No
  • nyt: Lean-Yes, because its archives are very thorough. But the links often go dead.
  • opencong: Unknown
  • opensecrets: Unknown
  • ontheissues: Yes
  • rose: No
  • votesmart: Yes
  • worldcat: No
  • wsj: No
  • washpo: Yes, because its links included not only articles but also voting information.

I will spread this post around on other appropriate locations (its home is Template_talk:CongLinks, and I will post the results there in a week. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Indian Rupee/size

I checked and this subtemplate is not in use, the size feature was never documented, and is not used, so we can delete the subtemplate. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Great. Thank you! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


I'm requesting you to create Template:Web with the content from Template:Web/sandbox if you would please, as you are the one that SALTed the title. I've already asked the deleting admin and they have no issues with the content I am proposing. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 23:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Why not call it Template:Web Entertainment? We typically try to make the navbox match the article name? Given how recently the 'web' redirect was in use for another purpose, it would be better, in my opinion, to let it rest for a bit. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • {{Web Entertainment}} is almost six times as long as {{Web}} and I was hoping for the much shorter name since it isn't in use for anything else. I suppose {{Web Entertainment}} could be used if it must, but the much shorter name would still be preferred. So, I'll leave the final decision with you, and as soon as you move it I'll start putting it to use. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 19:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I've moved it to Web Entertainment since that's what it should be called anyway & depending on further discussion, web might be used as a redirect. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Good idea. We can always create the redirect later. I just think it's a bit too soon given the dozens of {{web}} redirects which were being used as {{cite web}}. Redirecting it so soon would almost certainly cause problems. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for Discussion Closure and Template Merger

Hi Plastikspork,

As an administrator with experience in template deletion and merger, I was wondering if you could review this (ministerial) discussion to see if it is ready to be closed. Please note that I did ask another administrator to do this the week before; his response was, understandably, that I had to wait until the process played itself out. As I am aware, the period of time for discussion is seven days, which has now been reached. The reason I am asking you for this merger decision is because you have knowledge of the issue at hand (vice-regal template), and therefore can make an informed decision. I am hoping you agree that a general consensus has been reached, and that a quick merger decision is necessary to ensure consistency across political articles on Wikipedia.

I hope you'll look into it. Thanks for your consideration! Nations United (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

korean settlement infobox - picture size issue

something in this edit [6] removed the size control for the images in infoboxes resulting in huge images in all of the articles. i reverted your edit because I dont know template markup to just get sizing corrected. can you help? thanks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

(tps) I fixed it. there was a typo in the parameters. Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox power station

Hi, Plastikspork. You have been one of contributors to the {{Infobox power station}} or its preceding templates. Therefore I notify you that there is a discussion about changes to the power station infobox template. Your contribution is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Plastikspork. Would you be able to do a bot run/param scan for the above template as well? Almost the same thing as the dam template... :) Rehman 08:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure, I will start with a parameter scan. I just finished a third scan of Infobox dam, this time ignoring the tracking parameters. Will post it soon. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Awesome. *thumbs up* Rehman 00:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I think you misunderstood my unclear request haha. Would you be able to do the bot run across the articles? These are somewhat the final templates for each type of power stations. The bot should basically do two things; to rename the fields to those mentioned at {{Infobox power station}} (or my sandbox), and at the same instance, also update the whole template skeleton (on the article) with either one of the right template depending on the article. (would be nice if the spacings in the skeleton could also be matched). During the latter update, if there are fields that are no supported by the template, to remove them right away after updating such uses at the existing list at template talk. Would be able to assist in this please? Best, Rehman 02:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey. Would you be able to help change the default image width for {{Infobox dam}} and {{Infobox power station}} so that the default width would be the just within the template's width? I'm not too sure how do that myself. Thanks for all your help! Rehman 04:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Year in region

thanks for renaming a couple of these. I created the meta-template, template:year in region by moving template:year in India. later, I discovered that the oldest one of this style is template:year in Germany. could you split the history for template:year in India, then merge the history from template:year in Germany. I think it would be best if the lineage for template:year in region were merged back to the source (or just do the split history for all of them). thank you. Frietjes (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

thank you. Frietjes (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


Please restore the template redirect BD, since the target template was restored. - Altenmann >t 02:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

(tps) why not ask the admin who restored the template? Frietjes (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I am willing to restore it, but fist I would like to hear from Plastikspork about why it is create protected. I don't think it has been recreated much. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
(tps) probably to avoid confusion with Template:Bd (i.e., Wikipedia:Templates with names differing only in capitalization). Frietjes (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Wow, I'm shocked anyone actually cares what I think about any of this, after {{Lifetime}} was restored without notifying me. Not that I have any objections to have it restored. As Frietjes said, there is an issue with the redirect being on the list of templates with names differing by capitalization. Is there any particular reason why {{L}} doesn't work? Seems like that's even less typing than BD. But again, I am almost certainly fooling myself to think that my opinion matters here. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Module:Basketball color

hi spork! I have developed module:basketball color as a merger of all the various NBA/PBA/NBL/... etc basketball color templates. my question is how to handle the attribution. should I just replace the code in those with an invocation of the module, or is there something better that could be done. by the way, the plan is to follow the model used by template:convert, in that there will be a protected base data module, and a less protected extra data module. then, have it only use the extra one if the lookup fails in the primary. I plan to advertise this with the basketball wikiproject soon, and try to do the same sort of thing for the various college color templates. Frietjes (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice work! I would say just turning the individual templates into simple templates that just invoke the main module is probably the way to go. The edit history would be preserved, and it looks like you were clear about attribution when you created the module. Merging parallel histories is basically impossible, and redirection, or something similar, is the only way to go. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:GovLinks

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:GovLinks. 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. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

serius admnim
Thank you for using your tools (sporks) for the improvement of the project, for example by closing templates for discussion in a way that makes sense and shows patience and diligence to explain, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (18 August 2008, 8 January 2010)!

ps: you are the only I met so far who was awarded twice by Rlevse, the photographer of the sapphire!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 429th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox Liberian Cabinet

could you have a look at Template talk:Infobox Liberian Cabinet and related discussions? there seems to be an out-of-process orphaning going on here, which is similar to simply substituting template:infobox, since the generic template:infobox cabinet template is nothing but blank fields. Frietjes (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I commented, undid some edits, and suggested that they be taken to TfD. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox secondary school

I created a frontend in Template:Infobox secondary school/sandbox, but will need some work to make it substitution friendly. in particular, it would be good if it did not add the various fields if they are blank. especially the optional labels and the crazy image syntax at the top. after they are all converted, I think we can just redirect it, since {{infobox school}} is mostly parameter compatible (as you can see from the code in the sandbox). thank you. Frietjes (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Hieroglyphen

You closed Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_5#Template:Infobox_Hieroglyphen in August last year, but it seems that nether template was edited at that time; {{Infobox Hieroglyphen}} still carries a {{TfM}} notice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion

There are several redirects for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_27 in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

A club ≠ a team

Why do you think Template:Infobox bandy club should be changed to Template:Infobox sports team? It doesn't make sense, since one club may have more than one team – for men, women, youth of different ages. A multi-sport club may also have teams in different sports. Bandy boy (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Then use {{Infobox sports club}}? I checked the source for the old Bandy Club template, and there were no parameters for covering multiple teams, just standard sports team parameters. So, I don't really see a problem here. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox winery

just updated the syntax for this template. could you have your bot perform fixes like this? Frietjes (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I may have some time this weekend. I will have a bot check the articles first to see if there is a problem. I am assuming this is an issue with the use of piped links? Otherwise, your multi-syntax code looks like it will work fine. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

TfD closures

I don't say it in every case, as it would soon bore you, but thank you for all the valuable work you do, closing and carrying out TfD and TfM decisions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox TFDs

You recently closed the TfD for {{Infobox urban feature}}; I would prefer that you re-list it for further discussion, please.

Likewise {{Infobox Indian state government}}, where one of the two keep !votes had the caveat "pending demonstration of redundancy", which I subsequently provided. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I will take a look soon, but I am confused since I thought you were under a topic ban that includes "discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes". Did you have this clarified? Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Why would that be relevant; I'm not proposing either. I see that you have re-opened, but not re-listed (under a new date) the two discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
You removed the photographer infobox from many articles, and discussed removing it, so that would seem to be relevant. But, whatever. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I removed a module, not an infobox; all of the articles concerned still have their original infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there any reason you did not relist either of these templates, as I requested>? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Nudge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:Maybe free media

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Maybe free media. 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. UpEpSilon (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox power station redux

@Rehman: Sorry I have been a bit busy. I will have my bot run through the transclusions again this weekend. Does the current template support the new and old syntax? As far as I can tell, no one finished cleaning up bad parameter usage for {{Infobox dam}}? Seems like there is still plenty to do there? Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. Yep the template supports old parameters. There's still some pending at the power station template; still getting done bit by bit manually. Maybe you could update that usage as well? So that we have an idea of where we stand? Best regards, Rehman 13:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


Listen here, Plastikspork, there was no consensus to delete Template:Location_map_quick. NONE. None at all. None whatsoever. Hence, I have restored that template. I recommend next time, you look at who wrote the template, and if I wrote it, then DO NOT DELETE it without extensive discussions with ME personally. Do you understand? Wikipedia works by consensus (hello?), with other people (hello?), including me (hello?), and with the facts of system operation. If a template is needed due to performance reasons, then that fact prevents deletion. PERIOD. Do you understand? Just because a few people say, "wp:IDONTLIKEIT" does not constitute a "CONSENSUS" to delete a template which exists to fulfill a unique performance task. Do you understand? Do you understand? Do you REALLY understand? I utterly despise what you do here. How can you have such an attitude? I can imagine you want to delete hundreds and thousands of templates, but there are many thousands more which you can delete which were not written with years of computer-development experience. I despise what you are doing. And if you take the same attitude with others, then I utterly despise your whole attitude to treat other users with such base contempt as to ignore what they say and delete templates without consensus. You have ruthlessly wasted so many hours of my valuable time, and yet there you go again. Oblivious, in a world of your own. You need a serious attitude adjustment. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Right, consensus means a lot of people, including you, but when you say keep, and everyone else says delete, consensus is to delete. Please stop restoring properly deleted material and stop attacking others. Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Wait, wp:Consensus is not a "vote of the majority" but rather a logical process of reaching agreement with the facts and policies of Wikipedia. This concept has been discussed for years, and explains why opinions in a wp:TfD discussion are termed "!votes" ("not-votes") to indicate even if 100-to-1 voted to delete, the consensus with the facts could be "Keep" as the result of the logical process of forming consensus. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
It's now been moved back, without redirect. Wikid77 see your talk page for advice on how properly to contest the TfD outcome.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, this is a clear case of wp:IAR to restore a template which has been used in several live articles and was being used in active discussions to determine why the current version of Template:Location_map fails to position markers correctly on older versions of MSIE browsers, while Template:Location_map_quick placed the markers very close to the same pixel locations, in any browser, regardless of CSS class styles, or browser skins, in effect for a page. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
We've had the discussion, the consensus was to remove it from template space, so there's no point re-arguing its merits now. Your options are, as JamesBWatson explained, to civilly ask the closing admin to reconsider, and if you still think the closure was in error take it to deletion review.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Another sidebar

Hey, I found another sidebar that didn't get deleted (Template:Sylvester Stallone sidebar) after this deletion discussion. I'm coming to you since you deleted the others. Would you mind taking care of this one too? Gloss • talk 02:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion

There are several redirects for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14 in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling Alliance / Reality of Wrestling

could you history merge this cut-and-paste move? Frietjes (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Request to re-delete

Can you re-delete Template:Location map Italy, Template:Location map Croatia, and Template:Location map Nepal? They're completely unused now. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Angela Trimbur listed at Redirects for discussion


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Angela Trimbur. Since you had some involvement with the Angela Trimbur redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Episode lists without episode numbers

Category:Episode lists without episode numbers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Wbm1058 (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

"Quick" request for a WP:TFD close

Hello Plastikspork,

Since you seem to be the primary closer of TfDs, I was wondering, if you have a moment: would you be able to close the TfD request for Template:Rellink (if it hasn't been done yet by the time you read this)? I'm asking this directly since it seems that another editor is waiting on implementing some Lua code pending the result/close of this TfD. Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


I noticed that you deleted {{Reflist1}} but not {{Refrences}}. Did you miss that one? --AussieLegend () 05:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it. Next time you can tag it as either {{db-xfd}}, or in this case, {{db-test}} and avoid the entire TfD process. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox single

Please would you check (and improve!) my sandbox code, as discussed at Template talk:Infobox single#Data granularity redux? Feel free to apply it if you're OK with that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like this has been done! Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox biathlete world cup record

I believe I was the only one to mildly object to deletion of this template. on further inspection, it's redundant to the main {{infobox biathlete}} template, and can be deleted. I replaced it in two articles. Frietjes (talk)

Done! Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Swiss town infobox

Hi. Do we really still need it? Somebody should propose a wrapper or something.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

(tps) @Dr. Blofeld: see Template talk:Infobox Swiss town. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not a fair turn out. I think if it was advertised properly there would be a clear consensus to create a wrapper.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: the last wrapper discussion can be found in Template talk:Infobox Swiss town/Archive 4. Frietjes (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I've made a new proposal. That dated infobox has existed far too long!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably best to wait a few days further until it has been open a week but I don't think anybody can really argue with the support to convert it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I will have a look at the discussion. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Your maintenance work on vital tools such as the GregU dash script is very much appreciated. Thank you! Tony (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox british speedway team

could you history merge this with template:British speedway team table? Frietjes (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Done, but I will leave it to you to clean up the documentation. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
The outcome of the recent TfM, which you closed, was merge; the recreation of the tempate at {{British speedway team table}} is contrary to this; please take whatever action is necessary to complete the merger. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
The recreated template has now been moved, without a redirect, to Template:Infobox motorcycle speedway team/riders. I repeat my request: please take whatever action is necessary to complete the merger, per the wishes of the community, as expressed at TfM. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
How is it not merged? If there is a problem with how it was merged, you should really be discussing this on the template's talk page. As far as I can tell, it was merged in this edit. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Island of French Polynesia


Could I ask you to check, please, the status of {{Infobox Island of French Polynesia}}? You closed its TfD as "delete" on March 19, but it's not in the holding cell and is still tagged for discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Most populous US cities by state

Admittedly, I don't know that much about deletion and merging policy, but can I ask why when you deleted Template:Most populous US cities by state, you didn't also remove all of the existing transclusions in the city articles? Kennethaw88talk 04:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Update: I went ahead and redirected the page to List of U.S. states' largest cities by population. It seems like a more appropriate target, and there was a comment raised that the table wasn't really useful in List of United States cities by population. I don't think this is necessarily against the consensus. Kennethaw88talk 23:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


It seems that User:GregU/dashes.js may be in need of another patch (see this edit). The template exists in the guise {{DNB}}, so I'd ask you to tweak the protection mechanism. Maybe something like

var pat2 = /\{\{(main|see|detail|about|for\b|other|redir|conv|coor|sort|anchor|([Cc]ite |)DNB( [Cc]ite|))[^}]*$/i; to replace

var pat2 = /\{\{(main|see|detail|about|for\b|other|redir|conv|coor|sort|anchor|DNB [Cc]ite|[Cc]ite DNB)[^}]*$/i;? Cheers, -- Ohc ¡digame! 09:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Can you please help with this request? I have no idea which part of the script deals with this, so I'll leave the patching in your capable hands. Best regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 04:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

History merge

could you history merge Template:Infobox rugby union international tournament and Template:Infobox rugby tournament. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

and Template:WWE programs with Template:WWE Programming. Frietjes (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Question about a relisted template

To begin, thank you for relisting the Template:Primitive_fishes. I reluctantly agreed to change the header of the template to read Part of a series on...."Living Fossil Fishes", which received reluctant acceptance, but agreement nonetheless as an improvement. Is there anything that can be done to change the name of the template from Template:Primitive_fishes to Template:Living_Fossil_Fishes without having to create an entirely new template? AtsmeConsult 03:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Assuming there are no serious objections, you can move it to the new name. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Tennis tournament

thank you for history merging some of the old tennis tournament templates. I just redirected some more, so you may want to check them to see if any should be history merged. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Section labels

Re:-- Per WP:LAYOUT the sections at the end of the article are "Notes" and "References". So, why exactly are we using "Reference list"? Seems non-standard for no particular reason. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

-- As the main contributor to the Albert Anae article, including all of the citations, I note that the WP:LAYOUT as cited states: "Editors may use any section title that they choose".[rlist 1] Two days ago the section label was arbitrarily changed to "Footnotes" and it has now been twice relabeled again since.
Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable as per WP:MOS, which also states that if discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. -- Kiap (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Citations in articles about competition reality TV shows

Hi. Regarding these edits: [7], [8], [9], can you offer your opinion in this discussion? It is sorely needed. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Hidden begin-end/doc

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(→‎Parameters: </tr>? Seriously?)

Does using </tr> rather than |- cause problems..? (I haven't noticed any so far.) Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

(tps) we have an entire database report dedicated to eliminating spurious use of HTML. by using </tr> to insert row markup, the backend is actually generating broken HTML and relying on HTML Tidy to fix it. if the HTML Tidy module were disabled, your method would fail. given that HTML Tidy has not been updated since 2008, and is entirely incompatible with HTML5, it's very likely that it will be disabled in the future. Frietjes (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's basically the issue. We should use standard wiki table syntax and not some odd hack that depends on MediaWiki correcting the broken syntax. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there a way to replace " |- " with something that doesn't require a newline before it? (I suppose creating a template that produces a "</tr>" would only camouflage the problem – although I imagine the wiki syntax is, ultimately, converted into HTML...?) Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It looks as though there might be. If you think this works, perhaps bots could be tasked to replace similar </tr>s? Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Butting in... {{\\}} is a joke right? A template to replace standard wiki markup? I will kill that on site. Edokter (talk) — 09:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Is " || " a joke?
Is standard wiki markup sacrosanct?
Also, pun aside, please imagine I've posted your last statement as a response to something you've contributed.
Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I was dead serious. Using {\\} to replace a row marker is rediculous. {{!}} and {{!!}} do have a purpose in parameters and parser functions to escape the pipe character. {\\} only seems to exist to eliminate a line inside an edit window, thus introducing an alternate syntax that has no basis in usability. Edokter (talk) — 15:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree, please send it to TfD. Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • You miss/misunderstand my point.
Why, when there's " || " as an alternative to " | "<newline>" | ", is something similar for "..." <newline>" |- " a joke?
Also, please imagine the last statement in your initial message is a response to something you've contributed. Is it civil?
Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I admit I came out harch. Spurious templates seem to trigger some defences in me. The difference between \\ and || is is that || is official wiki table markup to accomodate multiple table cells on one line. Edokter (talk) — 20:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No need to admit anything; it's already here.
That " || " is official wiki table markup whilst {{\\}} isn't – wasn't – still misses the point. See what you make of my response to User:Technical 13 below. Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Isn't there is a {{!-}} for that?. As such, I've tagged {{\\}} and {{Endrow}} for CSD. I have seen a need to have such a thing, when transcluding tables in templates that are transcluded by other templates. The alternative is to just use html for that whole table instead of trying to mix wikitables and html tables... — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 18:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think you might be missing the point of {{\\}}. It's not meant to be a workaround template such as {{!-}} and the other " ! "-based templates. Instead, as " || " is to " | "<newline>" | ", so {{\\}} is to <newline>" |- ". It can be used to remove the gaps between rows that <newline>" |- " introduces to the code, reducing the number of lines the code needs and making columns easier to see. This is what the example in the documentation demonstrates – demonstrated. Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I looked at the code for both templates, it was identical. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 18:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Not quite the same, but it's something I haven't tried, so let's see:
{| style="border:1px solid grey;"
| one   || two  {{!-}}
| three || four {{!-}}
| five
one - three - five

Perhaps {{!-}} would still work as {{!-}} if it used the former {{\\}}'s code? Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Why is this discussion happening on poor Plastikspork's talk page? Isn't there a more appropriate place to move it to? — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 18:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Because, I suppose, this is where it began. I'm guessing a move would involve placing a copy of the above at its new home as well as archiving it here...? Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Nah, cut the discussion from here, paste it in its new home, leave a simple {{Moved to}} to the new home here... — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 18:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:Infobox person

You don't see a disproportionate gap between the placement of the "Website" heading and {{{website}}} / {{{homepage}}} / {{{URL}}} parameter...? Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No, all I see is an excessively small gap in your version. Looks like there is already a thread on your talk page. I concur that the place to discuss this is on the talk page for Infobox person. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

NPB team template

Earlier this year you closed this discussion about merging several baseball team infoboxes. I'm wondering why template:Infobox NPB team was merged into this while Template:Infobox MLB is allowed to remain separate? The NPB team infobox I created (12 transclusions) was modeled after after Infobox MPB (40 transclusions) and to have it merged into a more generic infobox and not allow it to have its own like MLB does seems strange. What is the reason that NPB's infobox is not allowed to exist while MLB's is? --TorsodogTalk 03:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

(tps) probably because no one has nominated {{infobox MLB}} for merging ... Frietjes (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
If you want to merge Template:Infobox MLB, then feel free to send it to WP:TFD. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

robert loggia update

When you updated, Robert loggia's wiki page I notice there was a movie that he was in but is not mentioned on hes page it was made in 1993 a sci fi called "Life pod" If you are able to rectify this it would be much appreciated to roberts profile and the internet world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterbrowne (talkcontribs) 09:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Continuum mechanics

Plastikspork, I'm mightily confused by your edits to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 March 12. You gave the result of the discussion as "relisted"; but you removed the TfD banner from Template:Continuum mechanics and you deleted the debate from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 March 12. Also, if it was relisted, where is the new debate? RockMagnetist (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@RockMagnetist: If you check the discussion on March 12, 2014, it provides a link to April 8, 2014. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems I didn't read it carefully enough. Thanks! RockMagnetist (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Nora Aunor sidebar

Hi I would like to make a new template, for sidebar, what should I do or what is the correct way of doing it. THanks. Sompat11 (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Given the fact that Template:Robert De Niro sidebar and so many others were deleted, I would say it's probably better to not create a new one. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You did not close the Simsons show pege on TFD Why?

You missed one on June 22 pege. (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2014‎ (UTC)

General fatigue (see my request for help with closing TfDs at WP:AN). Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox UK place

Would you have time to look at {{Infobox UK place}}, please? It needs a |coordinates_region= property, and the ability to set |coordinates_display=inline,title to display the coordinates inside the infobox, as well as at the top of the page. I raised this on the talk page a year ago, with no joy. Or we could just merge with/ make it a wrapper of {{Infobox settlement}}... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Try adding the {{editrequest}} template to the thread? Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Your archive system

Is your archiving done automatically? If so, will you help me set up my archives to function the same way? Thx in advance....AtsmeConsult 15:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme: It looks like your talk page is being archived automatically? Is there still something that you need help with? Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, it is working. It appears I may have lost concept of time - originally set frequency for 30d , and nothing seemed to be happening, so I changed the frequency to 14d, and confirmed it was working. Sorry to have bothered you needlessly, and thank you again for checking. AtsmeConsult 15:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
It's Sunday morning, and my brain was on idle when I responded^. The archive I was originally referring to is at Commons: [10] There are additional parameters in the template, but I'm not sure I did it correctly. Can you check it, and fix whatever needs to be fixed, and let me know? AtsmeConsult 15:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
@Atsme: No idea how to set up archiving on Commons. You should probably look for someone with a talk page on commons? Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

VIXX template revived

I wanted to alert you that I will be creating the page "Template:VIXX" again that you deleted a while back. I intend to get this template up to Wikipedia's standards within the next few days. I already created a page for one of the articles within the template. I would appreciate if you (or another admin) don't delete it again before I have a chance to get it up to standard, thank you! Goth67 (talkcontribs) 17:13, 19 May 2014‎ (UTC)

Thanks for the notification! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Forestry and gardening tools

Template:Forestry and gardening tools has been nominated for merging with Template:Forestry tools. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. DASonnenfeld (talkcontribs) 22:59, 27 April 2014‎ (UTC)

Thanks for the notification! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

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) 18:43, 8 May 2013‎ (UTC)

Thanks for the notification! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:2013 Southeast Asian Games Men's Water Polo standings

I think you missed one. :) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Another admin got it. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox championship

can you have your bot update these redirects? as a redirect, it's way too generic. Frietjes (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Frietjes I can do it. Just tell what is to be done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Frietjes if the only to do what to rename the infobox in all pages, I am done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
@Magioladitis: thank you! I can take care of the rest using tracking categories. Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

History merge

could you merge template:List of public transport infrastructure in Sydney with it's redirect target? Frietjes (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
thank you. Frietjes (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Matt Damon sidebar

this can be deleted per Template:Robert DeNiro sidebar. Frietjes (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

same with Jack Nicholson sidebar. Frietjes (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Done! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
thank you. Frietjes (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Flat Belly Diet - book cover.jpg


Thanks for uploading File:Flat Belly Diet - book cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I went ahead and deleted it. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Need your help creating a page

Hey man loooong time no talk lol. I really need help creating a page and I would love for you to assist me. Please and Thank You Juliusdevon (talk) 07:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Juliusdevon: What page? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Stay in your lane

If my edits are incorrect change them, but if they aren't, then very simply leave them as they are or just add what's you think is correct, all counties of the central valleys region should be Northern California & Central Valley. Simple as that. Cities should maybe include something more specific but the counties should only have Central Valley and a northern/Southern California. I don't appreciate my edits being changed I know the culture of Caliofniea I've lived in the Central Valley my whole life, I know many people here I know what the facts are and what is official and what is not. I've added tons of things to the central coast Central Valley and central California articles. And their counties do not change them Wikipedia states in their editions rules not to constantly edit and change things back or have edit wars. My information is not incorrect nor is it vandalizing Wikipedia so please just let them be. Thanks (Ladygaga328 (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC))

@Ladygaga328: (tps) you appear to be leaving this message for the wrong user. checking your edit history: your edits on Fresno, California were reverted by Onel5969. your edits on Stanislaus County, California and Tulare County, California were modified by Zzyzx11. your edits on Visalia, California were reverted by Debresser. the only connection that I see with Plastikspork is that SporkBot performed some unrelated changes in the same general time frame. I hope this helps. Frietjes (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing her in the right direction Frietjes. Will respond to Ladygaga328 on her talkpage. Onel5969 (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Template:Infobox ski area


An article that you have been involved in editing, Template:Infobox ski area, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. - SweetNightmares 22:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, will watch the discussion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


I noticed you closed the Overlinked template discussion with "no consensus." That is odd since only one of the votes was delete, and eight of them were keep, with two of those being strong keeps. Does not qualify as a "keep" conclusion?--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 15:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I asked the same in a section above. Debresser (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:NOTAVOTE? Frietjes (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that pretty much sums it up. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Mongol Empire

Hello, You note that the recent large-scale change to the Mongol Empire page is a rollback. Is this now a previous version of the page? If so the user has reverted the work of numerous other users without explanation. Is this the case? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Laszlo Panaflex: Seems that is the case. It was rolled back to early 2010, here is the proof. I have no idea if there was a compelling reason to rollback so far. I will leave it up to others to sort it out. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


Why did you relist Template:Overlinked, which had 5 keeps (now 6, and 2 of them strong keeps) against 3 deletes (which includes the nominator)? Debresser (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Why did you close the discussion with "no consensus" instead of "keep"? I see 8 'keep's and 3 'delete's (which includes the nominator)? Debresser (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

What is the vote count percentage for keep vs. no consensus vs. delete? The last time I checked, we were suppose to weigh the strength of the arguments and not simply count votes. Counting would be much easier, I admit (unless you live in Florida), since we could then just have a bot close the discussions. I will amend my closing statement, which I tend to omit due to general fatigue related to being the one who is closing over 90% of the discussions. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I know that discussion is not a vote, but still find both the numbers and the arguments convincing. I know the hard work you're doing here for years already, and have no idea what Tfd would do without you. Debresser (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Duluth, GA

Matthew Morris, aka "Matty B", a young rapper being famous by his YouTube videos.[14]

"Being famous by his..." You either didn't proofread or are the product of sub-par schooling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


The page is titled "Jae Retch " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliusdevon (talkcontribs) 00:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Engine navboxes

Just a quick line to say thanks very much for your work in deleting the many unused engine templates, hope it wasn't too much of a chore! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

re: Howard family in Lawrence twnshp

I'm hoping you can help me locate anyone in your area last name oh Howard. Researching my ancestry.

Please forward my contact information to them. Thanks.
Jason L Howard (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

1990 French Open – Women's Singles

It looks like you moved something - but I cant figuere it out - the article 1990 French Open – Women's Singles is a redirect to itself. Christian75 (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Barry Docks

Hi, can you merge the pin map into the infobox port?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

2003 AHS

Sorry for the edit conflicts, i have been trying to get rid of the old style of SE Charts for a few weeks now when i have had chance. As a result i have been able to find several ways of cheating and bringing in data from other articles, such as the List of retired Atlantic hurricane names and List of off-season Atlantic hurricanes.Jason Rees (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Template coding

Your name came up at User_talk:Dr._Blofeld#Query on map functionality. I would like someone to augment {{Infobox building}} to have the same multiple pin map option that {{Infobox settlement}} has. I.e., I would like to see both the before and after map of this edit included on the page. Can you augment the template for that feature.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

P.S. the example that I showed in that edit (Broadway_Hollywood_Building) is going on the main page at DYK on the 14th so if the change is not too complicated to copy over, it would be good if it could be done fairly quickly.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Neon Jungle

Hello, Plastikspork. I see you deleted Template:Neon Jungle; could you please restore it because it now meets WP:NENAN? This was deleted at TfD - I know because I voted on it - but I am no longer of that view. Deletion review says to come to you first. Thank you.--Launchballer 07:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Help with p tags

Can you please help with this one? -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be already done?! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Province TR

Any chance this can be converted to infobox settlement in practice in the articles? Tried adding a picture to Sirnak Province box but didn't work. Somebody needs to go through the provinces and replace with the larger infobox settlement with some empty standard parameters,♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

(tps) Dr. Blofeld, just added |image= and |caption= options here. Frietjes (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

photos please

Hi. My name is Tesha Kirkpatrick. I'm from Spartanburg SC. This may seem strange, but I've had several dreams about a town called Windsor, but I didn't know it was a real town. And just for fun, I'd like to maybe see it. If you have any photos from around town, could you post them ? Thank you very much (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)Tesha Kirkpatrick


I just realized that the wrong date is given at Template_talk:Tag_Team_(group). It should be Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_1#Template:Tag_Team. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of songs considered the best may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *[[List of films considered the best]]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Reinstalled. Any talk happened?

I see you reinstalled & moved the {{Convert/2}} series. Is this based on a discussion I missed? (I only know of Template_talk:Convert#Old_.7Bconvert.2F....7D_templates_not_covered_.28e.g._.7Bconvert.2Ftext2.7D.29). -DePiep (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course, it's because I am interested in your thoughts about these: Future support? Alignment with {{convert}} /doc & module? Deprecation? -DePiep (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
DePiep As far as I can tell, they were deleted without any discussion at WP:TFD. Rather than take the whole thing to DRV, I just moved them to a subpage of the old convert template to preserve the history. Another option would have been to redirect them to the current convert template. I would support doing the same (move or redirect) with the rest of the old convert templates. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I see. Will have them declared deprecated. -DePiep (talk) 12:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

TfD closure

(Undid revision 627136872 by Sardanaphalus (talk) Sorry, but you don't get to close discussions in which you !voted)

Apologies; I'll remember that if/when there's a next time. Does your edit now mean you're also unable to close the discussion?

Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

PS What does the exclamation mark prefixed to "voted" mean in your edit summary – presumably not "not"..?

See WP:BADNAC and WP:!VOTE = WP:NOTAVOTE. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


seems there is still a problem at Annur. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Harold Green II, rb from UŠĆ Gamecocks was not born in Ladson South Carolina. He was born at David Medical Center at Través AFB Calif. Located in Solano County. I am his father and Just notice this error. Please correct.

Thank you , Harold Green Sr. 843 709 8916 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

New mayor for Taylorsville, UT

The new mayor for Taylorsville, UT is Larry Johnson and has served since Jan. 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


Hi Plastikspork, this is a very difficult article to work on. I would appreciate it very much if you would not force style changes on it, especially not at this point while it's at peer review and so much is likely to change. Having said that, if you have advice about why you prefer quote boxes, I'd also appreciate hearing it so that I can take it into account. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: How is the discussion we are currently having on the talk page not sufficient? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Some cricket TfDs

Hi, a long time ago now, you closed Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 19#Cricket team infoboxes. Nothing has since been done to enact the merge, and the notifications are clogging up Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Article alerts. I haven't been around much lately, and don't have the technical know-how to really merge these myself. Is there anyone you can suggest contacting to possibly get this cleared up? Thanks, Harrias talk 11:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest asking Frietjes. She is pretty good at merging infoboxes. If that doesn't work, you could try one of the other editors of the WP:List of infoboxes pages. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

TfD and other template business

Blueprint Barnstar 3.PNG The Template Barnstar
Here, have a barnstar for (pretty much singlehandedly) handing TfD and all your other template-related efforts. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of UAS Intl Trip Support Article

Hi :)

You declined my submission and I was wondering why? I realize it's because of copyright infringement (according to my message because of the Make-A-Wish source), but I directly cited the source. So I'm wondering why it says I'm "infringing copyright" if I'm giving credit to the source in question?

Thanks so much for your insight! I just want to get this article published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballen1109 (talkcontribs) 22:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ballen1109, you need to be more specific. You have no edit history and you have provided no link to the submission. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I found it, it was your sandbox and was tagged as a copyvio of by Joe Decker. You should ask Joe for more tips about avoiding copyvio. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Plastikspork So, I basically need to submit an external link to the company's (UAS) URL and I should be fine, correct? If all sources are cited then there should be no issue, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballen1109 (talkcontribs) 22:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ballen1109, you should start by making sure there is not a single phrase or sentence that is copied from the sources or any sources on the web or in print. However, you should have citations for every fact that's in the article. I will get you started by giving you some of the non copyvio content in a moment. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Ballen1109, see User:Ballen1109/sandbox. I restored all the clearly non-copyvio stuff. Feel free to try again. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
That's right--please write in your own words. Copyrighted material (as nearly every bit of text is, whether it is marked as such or not, under US law) would need to be signed over because of their licensing formally, but doing that would be a waste of time, since the text that was copied is also non-encyclopedic--it's written in a somewhat promotional style. Much easier to avoid the wasted effort and to simply write in your own words, trying to maintain a neutral point of view, from the start. Thanks! --j⚛e deckertalk 23:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Confine the bot to article space.

Bots should not make edits related to citations, like this one, for two reasons. First, there is no good reason to make such edits outside article space. Talk pages of articles should also be excluded. Second, it is especially bad to make changes to pages that discuss citations, because such pages may contain deliberate "errors" to illustrate the wrong way of doing something.

Please acknowledge that you will restrict the bot as described by 13:00 UT 2 November 2014, otherwise I will request the bot be blocked.Jc3s5h (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, I will restrict it to articles until there is approval to do otherwise. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

quotation sandbox on test

Hi Plastikspork, if you want to play with the quotation/quote templates and see what works, I advice using the one over at test wiki, mainly because you can hack at common.css there. It's not protected, and if you accidentally break quote or quotation it's no big deal. There are testcases over at and the test template itself is at Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Tfd links

(Something went wrong ...

Thanks for spotting and reverting. I'm away for the rest of today, but am curious to learn on my return what caught your attention. The testcases look okay (although they're not particularly probing) as did a preview of a TfD page where I'd replaced {{Tfd links}} with {{Tfd links/sandbox}}. Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 07:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Am still intrigued to learn what you saw. Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
    The indentation was entirely off and the format mysteriously changed without discussion. Feel free to propose something on the talk page if there is a problem with the current format. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Error in bot?

It looks like something went wrong in this edit. Your username was inserted in article space. −Woodstone (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Woodstone, Yes, that should not have happened. That's the problem with trying to substitute templates inside of citations. I will have the bot go back and check all the prior edits. Thanks for finding it! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Infobox gunpowder plotter


Please reconsider your closure at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 15#Template:Infobox gunpowder plotter. There were no keep !votes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Relisted, and I will refrain from closing any discussions that you have opened since you are concerned with how I close discussions. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Infobox college cross country team

could you history merge this with Infobox College Cross Country, but use Infobox college cross country team as the merged name? thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

thank you. same with Template talk:Infobox American football team and the doc page. Frietjes (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
thank you again, same with Template:George Bernard Shaw (or at least swap the names). Frietjes (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Done! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
thank you. Frietjes (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Underground comix

not sure if it's possible but could you history merge Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Underground_comix/ with Underground comix cartoonists, Underground comix characters, Underground comix publishers, Underground comix works? Frietjes (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

and Template:Election table/doc with Template:Electiontable/doc. ty Frietjes (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Done! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
thank you. Frietjes (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Move a templates

could you move Template:Atlanta Dream navbox to Template:Atlanta Dream? thank you. Frietjes (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Block quote

hi, I replaced some of these, but the rest are on talk pages. it would be good if your bot could do the rest? Frietjes (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for the help! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Saibal bassi

just curious as to why edited my wiki pages and took out true, and accurate information. On whose behest? Saibal bassi (talkcontribs) 08:33, 15 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Saibal bassi, can you tell me which IP or other user you are? You have no edit history. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Template fix

Thanks for making all the template fixes like this as a result of Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_28#Template:1983_Pan_Am_medal_titles. You saved me quite a bit of work! SFB 21:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

rob van Winkle

He did not live in south dallas (the hood) he lived in carrolton/farmers branch area. He attended R L Turner high school. The area is a suburb of North of dallas. The school is proud of him going there. In the you can be anything speech and these people did went to turn my son said vanilla ice and Rob van Winkle school pictures were on the projector. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Good for him? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Recement for template

What is replacement for Template:Convert/LonAonDbSoffNa --Palapa (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Palapa, the replacement is Module:Convert which is used by Template:Convert, and even without the module, you can restructure the various unit templates so they don't call it. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

chambery france url confusion

Hello I'm contacting you because you were the last to edit the page on Chambery France and contacting anyone else is a mysterious labyrinth of links that gets nowhere. If there is nothing you can do, then forgive me for sending this. Either way, no response is needed. I have solved this little problem myself but others may not figure it out. I recently bookmarked the wikipedia page on Chambery but today when I returned all the text was gone... Only the name "Chambéry" appeared. Where did it all go? It's strange but here is what I finally figured out.--- Somehow there are 2 URL's. Both have only one tiny difference.

1.éry (no words for this one) 2. (Full info is located here)

Notice the difference? It's the "e" in Chambery. the url that is an actual wikipedia page that says "Chambéry" has the little slash above the letter, "é" But thats it. Just "Chambéry" The URL #2 is the full wikipedia page that one hopes to find. This is my best attempt at passing this along. Even if it doesn't help, you have to admit it's an interesting glitch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Hi, yes you discovered what we call a "redirect". If you check this page, you will see the redirect. The fact that it's a redirect is hidden in the mobile view. If this is causing a problem, I would suggest asking at WP:VPT. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Infobox book merge

I reverted [11] your edit in {{Infobox book}} (that followed this TfD closure). The reason is that it was not discussed in or with the receiving template.

  • The original request was a deletion and so only one template was tagged. That discussion, in the posts, turned into a 'merge' topic. That is when {{infobox book}} got involved, but it was not tagged. As a result, the merge was imposed upon the receiving one. This way a change was entered through the backdoor. It was not a mature discussion.
A better route would have been to changed the open discussion formally (into a TfD-merge), by tagging & adding the second template. Also, a relist would have been appropriate (no reason to accept time pressure in such a process change). Maybe a talkpage note too. All this would not make you an involved admin.
Added: another option is to add a {{request edit}} section+template to the talkpage. While you have TE/admin rights, this way more eyes are invited. -DePiep (talk) 11:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • More background. I happened to work on {{infobox book}} just last week, in a similar situation (very similar). For a 30k transc'd template, some care was necessary, not everybody knows enough about book publishing. Sandboxing, discussing and patience: the usual stuff. And this was by this TfD, posted right below the one we are talking about (it was not tagged either, but I happened to pick it up). It also resulted in an update of the documentation.
Interestingly, just half a day before you did the conclusion this way I noted exactly this issue in another TfD [12]. Another immature proposal. -DePiep (talk) 10:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I note that Pigsonthewing‎ is edit warring in this reversal without entering this talk (abusing their TE status). I request that you settle the status of the page into the before your edit, as I intended and as you mentioned in your original es. Pigsonthewings might need a warning. -DePiep (talk) 11:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I note that DePiep is edit warring in this reversal without using the template talk (abusing their TE status). DePiep might need a warning. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
re this edit/rv sequence, I opened this ANI thread. -DePiep (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
SO you did. How did that go for you? And why have you interrupted here; breaking the list markup in doing so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    • You're both acting like asses on this talk page. It would be nice if you would stop doing that, as I know both of you are not, in fact, asses, but generally helpful editors, who try to best serve Wikipedia (and sometimes disagree on how to do that). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
MH, I do not accept your judgement wrt me. Did you read the original Plasticsporks es, and the timeline? -DePiep (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes. To me, the timeline looks like this. There was a TfD. It would have been nicer if it had had a merge notification on it so that those interested in a possible mergee had more opportunity to discuss the template as well, but it didn't. PlastikSpork correctly closed the discussion, and enacted it. You had some doubts about the stability and diligence in the way he implemented it, so you reverted it, as indicated in the edit summary of PlastikSpork you should do, and started discussion. So far so good. Andy didn't see the problem with the edit (which, to me as well seems fairly tame; it's just an extra entry, there is relatively little to go wrong there). There are already some tensions between you and Andy. Despite what I assume Andy thought to be a revert to a minor and positive change in the template, especially because of the tensions, discussing rather than doing the revert would been better. Reverting a revert can be seen as the first step in an edit war, and going the BRD route would likely have been a good idea. Then you come here, complain about abuse of editing tools - which is a rather heavy accusation, that I really don't feel is called for - and ask for warnings to be given out. You warn Andy about edit warring in a manner that would almost certainly be taken as an attack, instead of pointing out your concerns, and ask for a little time and discussion to make sure that nothing inadvertently breaks - which I'm pretty sure was your reasonable and justified reasoning. Also, you revert the revert of the revert, definitely entering edit war territory yourself. Those actions are the actions I'm calling behaving like an ass on; it are actions that further dispute rather than deescalate it. Andy then comes here on this page, and copies your remark, acting in the same law-and-order warn him to stop (or else) way you did before. It has the same unpleasant sound to it; mainly because he almost exactly copied it, likely for the effect of showing you are doing the exact same thing, and that's a bad thing. Ironically, that points out his own wrong in this IMO. It was an uncourteous message from you, and equally uncourteous from Andy. He also steps deeper into edit war land. Those are things when I think Andy is acting like an ass on. And the heart of the matter is neither of you had to escalate. The wikiworld wasn't burning, neither with nor without the extra parameter in the template and both of you are just getting each other riled up. You may reject my judgement with regards to your actions (not to you, please make that distinction), but please consider my advice that taking the road to deescalation, even if you feel you are right, even if you are right, will make this whole Wikipedia adventure a lot more pleasant for at least yourself. (Sorry for trampling all over your talkpage Plastikspork) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
If you mean to say I should have shut up in the first place, I disagree and you have not convinced me. Your opinions intertwined here do not clarify at all, and I have not found a single point of advice I could or should have done different. You introduce "tensions between you and Andy" (from outide the TfD you imported), but I don't see how that is an argument for anything. Meanwhile you have not acted upon the disruption, which appears to be in line with your preferred outcome. In other words: forget about due process, the disruptor is rewarded, discussion derailed. I note that you did not engage in the OP here. That is hardly a position to explain an independent opinion, nor for telling others who's the ass. I'm waiting for Plasticpork. -DePiep (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
no, I didn't mean to say that. If I would have, I would have. I'm not sure what you mean by "engage in the OP", but if you mean I haven't explained why I think Andies actions were at points not helpful, please read my (rambling) rant above again; I discuss them at length. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
MH, length is not the problem. Your post is full of opinions. I do not need an "ass" judgement from your opinions. And for the facts you mention, you do not point out a single action I should have done different. "entering edit war territory yourself" - nonsense. I reverted Psprok once for the known reason, and then I reverted Pigs exactly once for editing without talking here. Once. Then I stopped (what deescalation do you have in mind?). Now you come to tell me, in vague words, that I was edit warring? And you tell me that I should not have warned Pigs after they did two TE reverts without talking? Please. I notified Plastikpork here about this situation, but you call that "complaining". Sure. "neither of you had to escalate". What escalating me are you talking about? And in all this you say that you prefer the outcome Pigs has enforced by disruption. That is rewarding the disruptor (a disruption it is. Or do you value their c/p "contribution" to this page higher? As in: and advancement of the discussion?). Mind you that, had I not reverted Pigs that one time, what would the situation would be? -- Right, the same reward you are advocating. And still not discsussion here.
Don't forget that I did not 'enter the content discussion about the edit (though you already too ka loan on that outcome - like, 'it's right to me so disruption doesn't matter').
A sound action would be (I still ask Plasticspork to preform), to revert Pigs action and to start the discussion. How difficult can it be.
"engage in the OP" means respond to the original post I made here. -DePiep (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I add: I propose that we fold this subthread from your 14:16 "You're both" post downwards. It's a distraction. -DePiep (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
You don't seem interested in dialog, and I won't carry this discussion any further. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
A 'dialog' by calling me names? -DePiep (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Guys, please stop this. I have opposed nominations because they were not strictly tagged as merges, before, but this is such a simple change. If there was an actual problem, I could see a discussion, but this is disruptive over many different discussions just to make a point. Why not give a closing admin room to cut through some red tape? I've never seen Plasticspork abuse such room, but if an actual problem had been encountered, it would have been remedied. We are supposed to be WP:BOLD, so why should it not apply to closing admins? Anyway, have fun editing! —PC-XT+ 07:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
You forget that a merge discussion could have resulted in a different outcome. Also, it was Plasticspork themselves who made the It's Open es statement. If you mean to call the untalked TE reverts by Pigsonthewings are equal "you both" to my edits and posts, I'll have to disappopint you: not true. I am stil disappointed that the edit warring by Pigs has gone uncorrected. Plasticspork (offline since) or any other less involved admin/TE editor could have set the disrupted record straight. As it stands now, the disruptor has enforced their outcome, and the threat of future disruptions is still present. -DePiep (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
A merge discussion would have tagged both templates, resulting in a wider automatic canvassing. (Mr. Mabbitt has been told off for tagging popular templates in such cases, before, BTW, by people arguing they should be noincluded on popular templates.) I don't mean to accuse anyone in particular. "Guys" is plural. I was referring to the arguing between both of you as being disruptive, and not only in this case. I see your side. There are too many TfD's made and virtually abandoned for others to sort out with little to go on. Arguments are often made that only routine TfD readers would understand. I also see Mr. Mabbitt's side. Sometimes we bring templates to TfD when they just need more eyes, and we don't always know how to explain it. The D stands for discussion, and it sometimes takes an informal nature. Closing admins need to wade through all of these different discussions looking for consensus, and I don't want to make things more difficult for them. Almost everything is up for discussion on Wikipedia, and I am not against your protest, only the manner in which it is being conducted. In the particular case of this infobox, I !voted for merging, but don't mean to defend that. I did hesitate because it was not a merge discussion, but felt it was trivial enough. I saw Plasticspork's invitation to "revert/discuss." With a merge where the old template is not preserved as a redirect, there is more to consider than one revert. There are other pages that use the new option in the template, without the option of falling back to the old template. If I had performed such a revert as this, and was then reverted, I would understand and be content with solving it in a discussion. I fear that it looks like you guys were only reverting because of the one who reverted before you, and otherwise imitating each other's undesirable behavior. Why argue over which one was first? I'd rather encourage constructive behaviour. Still, I hope you guys can put this behind you and have fun editing. :) —PC-XT+ 04:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, I think, for the spirited discussion. I did welcome a revert of my addition to Infobox book. I don't edit/check Wikipedia everyday. Unfortunately, it appears the following discourse was not entirely constructive. I don't think there is really much more for me to do or say at this point. Please feel free to continue to discuss the the pros and cons of having the additional parameter at Template talk:Infobox book (including the pros and cons of how it would be implemented). So, I feel as though this thread is closed. Please feel free to continue the discussion elsewhere. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Those who do not talk also continued elsewhere. As predicted, the edit warrior who was not stopped felt encouraged to start stalking. -DePiep (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:100% et al TfD

Did you miss this..?
Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) I don't think it was missed. None of those templates are used anywhere, except in your userspace. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 15:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


Please stop marking non-revert edits as reverts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you be more specific, these are not marked as reverts. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
You used a revert tool or link, so they were marked as such in my notifications. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Would it have been better for me to first press revert, save, and then have a bot resubstitute them? Seems like this was the easiest way to fix the parserfunctions you left when you orphaned the infobox before the discussion was completed. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to intrude The notifications mark a lot of things as a "revert" and send out statements to editors accordingly, but this should not be confused with a WP:Rollback—which was not being used and is only used for obvious WP:Vandalism. Indeed, the changes you made were not marked as "revert" in the edit summaries. So I think this is just a failure to communicate. 7&6=thirteen () 19:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
It would be better if you didn't use "revert" when the result of your edit is not a revert. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Example diff please, Andy. So far, looks like Plastikspork was fixing your edit, which might well be counted as a revert. -DePiep (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
seems fine to me too since it was equivalent to two edits (1) revert and (2) substitute correctly. seems like the way to avoid this would be to substitute correctly the first time. and by correctly, I mean (1) not leave parser functions in the articles and (2) not just before sending the template to TfD. Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


The other day you closed a template for discussion for Persondata with a deprecate decision. Deletion review says the first step is to contact the closing administrator, so here I am.

The main reason why I contest this decision is that there was no notification on the Persondata talk page that this TfD had been raised. Check the talk page history, there is just a single "bot request" edit during the 9 days the TfD was running. Just before the TfD there was a busy RfD and after you posted your decision, the talk page burst into life. My conclusion is that there are plenty of interested parties who would have contributed had they been aware. The usual "Persondata crowd" were unaware of the TfD. Were the four people who actually took part fully aware of the complexities behind the Persondata debate?

On a personal note, I was prevented from adding my opinion to this decision. The TfD starts by saying Superseded by Wikidata, my research says otherwise. A lot of work has gone into creating the Persondata metadata, and it is still ongoing. I want to avoid the demise of Persondata, and the loss of data, until it has been properly superseded.

Should I start a deletion review process or another TfD (this time with proper notification)? Periglio (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) I support overturning the "deprecate" decision. I think a template as highly used as this one requires more consensus than what is present in that discussion. With only a handful of contributors to the discussion, it should have been relisted and the proper delsorts posted and projects that use this data poked at. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 03:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I support overturning the decision, because of insufficient announcement; While I agree with the ruling, we need a more thorough consensus given there were around 50 users in the RfC but only 4 in the Tfd. Please advise us on how to proceed.—Msmarmalade (talk) 07:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with deprecation. There is absolutely no point in storing duplicate information in this badly-designed, hidden, manner, when we have a much better tool for recording it, in Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Periglio, Technical 13, Msmarmalade, and Pigsonthewing. It seems like more a question of what follows "deprecation". No one seems to be disputing that the information would be better placed in WikiData. And no one seems to be suggesting that the Persondata template be removed before the information is moved to WikiData. So, as long as no one is going around removing the Persondata template without moving the information to WikiData, there is no problem? This seems to be captured by the statement in the description. Perhaps make that section more visible by using a {{notice}}? Or am I missing something. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
My problem is what does deprecate really mean. I do not mean the dictionary definition, but what action should or should not be taking from this point forward. For example, should we stop AWB adding it to articles? I happy to leave the deprecate decision as it is and take the discussion back to the Persondata talk page. Periglio (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Question at your BRFA page

I have left a question for you at the bottom of your current BRFA page. Thanks for building this bot. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


I want to buy your most recent book on the Bear — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sidebar with collapsible lists/row

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Sidebar with collapsible lists/row has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


What is replace as a TfD conclusion [13]? Why don't you give a summary of your valuation of the arguments present? Does a TfD discussion have anything to do with your closure? -DePiep (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixed my edit summary. Let me know if/when you take it to WP:DRV. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I wrote three questions. Did you respond to any one? And, of course, you don't need to tell me what DRV is (which you make sound like: "shut up, I won't read you anyway"). Instead, let me tell you that you're supposed to evaluate the arguments present.
Also, time you take a stand in the repeateed (AndyPig) disruptions, both in TfD discussion flow and edit behaviour. As you conclude these days, the disruptor wins.So why discuss a TfD at all. DePiep (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
You appear to have a problem with me, but I am having a hard time figuring out exactly why, or exactly what I have done to piss you off this time. (1) In the context of a TfD, replace means "replace with another template", Redirect means "redirect to another template" (2) There are many discussions to close, and I don't leave a detailed discussion if I feel as though the conclusion is obvious. (3) Yes, the content of the discussion directly influences how I close the discussion. (4) Please tell me what you mean by "take a stand in the repeateed (AndyPig) disruptions, both in TfD discussion flow and edit behaviour" if you are accusing me of something. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I am assuming you want me to create a more verbose closing statement, so I will do so. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
"a problem with me"- No. That is incorrect. I clearly point to your edits and describe about your behaviour & actions. I find it wrong to turn this into a personal thing. (Of course, if I actually did so, please point it & I am open for self-correction). Content response to follow. -DePiep (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
DePiep, once again, I must caution you about NPA, phrasing to misstate a user's username, such as "Andypig", is completely unacceptable. It is your behavior that is the more disuptive here, particularly when you reduce yourself to ad hominem personalized attacks. I suggest you redact that "Andypig" comment immediately. Montanabw(talk) 20:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Distraction. They themselves use two names. Any contribution? -DePiep (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── re Plastikspork: "I am assuming you want me to create a more verbose closing statement"

I was asking straight questions. Why "assume" and rewrite my question?. I am asking you to follow straight TfD discussion process, and now you play dumb? How does that improve a TfD discussion, past & future? -DePiep (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Please tell me how I am not following process. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


Re: this TfD - there was consensus for one template in the list, Northern Mariana... GiantSnowman 13:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

User:GiantSnowman, the original rationale was the lack of links. I could have relisted it, but things get messy when you only relist part of a discussion. Feel free to renominate it if you still want it deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SporkBot 5

Approved. Cheers =) --slakrtalk / 03:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Cite California statute

this is a merged version of the two CAstat templates. I have moved the subpages as well, but there may be some history merging to do? thank you. Frietjes (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


I don't see that {{ctr}} got relisted. --  Gadget850 talk 00:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

(tps) I fixed it for you :) Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox Swiss town

Now have consensus to get shot of this. Can you create an infobox standard settlement for starters?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

(tps) User:Dr. Blofeld, put something in the sandbox. some comparisons are in Template:Infobox Swiss town/testcases. probably needs some more testing, but seems to be close. Frietjes (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Frietjes, looks great, go for it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings to a special Wikipedian...

XmasTreeWorm-Atsme- IMG 0514.jpg

Atsme (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2014‎ (UTC)

Template:Iran Squad 1996 FIFA Futsal World Championship

How can we re-wrote it?--saeedparva 12:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

cut-and-paste move

"Template:Archbishops of Atlanta" and "Template:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta" thank you Frietjes (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

more to check here Frietjes (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry

To you and yours


FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)