User talk:Primefac

Infobox person is filling up again

Category:Pages using infobox person with unknown parameters has 14k pages in it. I've moved out the home_town stuff, but it's still way too big. Some of this is previous hard deprecations (residence, weight, salary, etc), some common misspellings of a real param, and others just totally made up params ([1]). I'm wondering if the general authorisation for IP on task 29, or 30, might allow you to clean up some of the clearer cases to make the cat manageable again? I can also split out the deprecated params into separate tracking cats (as I've done for home_town), and I think that would also do the trick, if there's a concern some of the information should still be retained (even though it doesn't show), I guess in case consensus changes or something. Thoughts? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I can look into it. No guarantees if the bulk is garbage, but if there are any major trends for deprecated or just misused params, I can deal with those. Primefac (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The vast majority, about 10,000 of the 14,000, appear to be |residence=. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

So it looks like the following are problematic, based on the TemplateData linked above:

• residence (~12000)
• label_name (~500)
• criminal_charge (~500)
• salary (~400)
• number_of_films (~300)
• nickname (~250)
• domesticpartner (~200)
• office (~200)
• language (~175)
• organization (~85)
• Spouse (~50) → spouse
• genre (~50)
• Children (~50) → children
• Name (~50) → name
• Residence (~40)
• Nationality (~35)
• Origin (~30)
• nocat_wdimage (~25)
• Height (~25) → height
• other_name (~25)
• house (~20)
• field (~20)
• Occupation (~20)
• Religion (~20)
• label (~20)

There are a bunch with <20 hits, but at that point I'm at diminishing returns because there are more parameters than reasonable (there are ~40 params with 10-20 uses). I've marked the ones above that need just a name change, though I don't know the template very well so I might have missed some. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks good - thanks both. Note on |criminal_charge=: it is actually recognised by the template (as an alias of |criminal_charges=). I have added it to the TemplateData. Re residence, do we want to scrap it with bot, or just move it out into a separate tracking category? I think it may depend on if there's salvageable information in that param that should perhaps be moved into the article body (if not already there), but at the same time not sure it matters. Don't mind either way, just raising the point. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I guess it depends on why it was removed - if it was "too vague" and it was split into multiple parameters, then yes, just chuck it into its own category. If the intent was to remove that information entirely (much like religion, nationality, and ethnicity) then it can just be removed. Primefac (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Also note that |weight= is also hard deprecated and removed (1,055 usages) 1 year ago. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Forgot to check the deprecated params. Listed below:

• home_town (~5300)
• child (~1000)
• weight (~1000)

Majority of the |child= calls are "yes", which I assume means they're mistaking it for |embed=? Or would it be because they're saying "yes, they have at least one child"? Primefac (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Seems both |child= and |embed= are supported aliases. Both are deprecated, I presume in the sense of "you probably shouldn't be using this". In that literal sense of deprecated I think there's maybe nothing bot needs to do currently, but the question is still an interesting one. Since the param is liable to misuse with |children=, I think it may be a neat idea to either remove the alias in favour of just |embed=, or setup a tracking cat where the value isn't "yes", to at least catch some cases. FWIW, I think a bot could make sense of valid usages (if it's not actually nested within another template, it's not really an 'embed', hence the usage is likely the 2nd meaning you list). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Based on the TemplateData report there are about 20 uses that aren't |child=yes, so it's easy enough to go through manually and change those. Afterwards, if child is deprecated it might as well be removed to avoid any further confusion. Primefac (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

As far as |child= goes, I'm not going to deal with it without a clear consensus (since it is a valid param, and is listed in the param check as such). I'll hit up the rest of these soonish. Primefac (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Enrolment ref enquiry

• Template:Infobox school

Hey Primefac, hope you're well, been a while. I can see you added enrolment_ref, students_ref and pupils_ref. Are these needed? I'm going to propose at some point in removing the as_of parameters as they just add the year in brackets when it is easer to add it manually next to the enrolment data, rather than use a separate parameter to do this which is a bit redundant. Also because some articles use as_of and some don't. Please let me know, thank you :) Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I added it because I was cleaning up here and noticed that if you use "...as_of" it messes with the referencing, so I thought I'd add it in (I've also seen similar templates where it's <thing><thing_as_of><thing_ref>). Happy to be reverted if the long-term plan is to just remove the _as_of entirely (which actually does make a bit of sense). Primefac (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh I see, yeah I've noticed it adds the reference inside the brackets which doesn't look right. I think it might be a good idea if you remove it for now or maybe keep it? If I see as_of being used, I remove this and move the year to the enrolment parameter. I've also noticed other editors just add the year next to enrolment instead of using the as_of parameters. Having checked the parameter usage report, the as_of parameters is being used on around 4,000 articles compared to 26,000 for the enrolment only parameters.

The overall aim is to reduce the number of parameters in the infobox, there's too many and lots of redundancy where most are listed on the template talk page. Actually this reminds of something else I've been wanting to ask you — the parameters for removal, merge and alias consolidation have been listed on the talk page since 2018/2019, there is support by a user and I did post on multiple users talk pages inviting them to take part in the discussion and on the WikiProject Schools talk page (now in archive, dated 15 January 2019), no one seems to have opposed to it. Do you think I'd be able to go ahead with this, I've been waiting for so long to simplify this template (remember when I was asking you about doing another bot run, it was for this haha). There is a few more parameters to add such as the as of ones, maybe I could list these, write a note again on WikiProject Schools talk page inviting users, and if no one comments to object, can this been deemed consensus to go ahead? Just thinking, as the as_of is still being used on 4,000 articles, perhaps the removal of this one can be done in an entirely separate discussion after the cleanup one is done and out of the way? As it would require moving the enrolment year next to the enrolment data with the brackets added manually unless a bot can do this? Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll self-revert (only one article uses it anyway).

As for the rest - I find a lot of the time that no one will comment on a discussion until after a change is made, so I would say to just go ahead and do it. Happy to set my bot on the task of updating params etc when it's done (and after people have bitched about it). Primefac (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I see, the other problem is how long can you wait but it's been too long here in this case haha. I have some ideas on new country-specific parameters to add, but don't want to start this discussion until the infobox is cleaned up and consolidated — it's too big and messy in its current state. I think I will go ahead and carve out the 'Merge' and 'Other' sections as Infobox cleanup 2 or something, leaving Infobox cleanup section with 'Rename and delete' and 'Delete completely' which can be done with a bot straight away. When I'm done, can I let you know? What you think? Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good; you're always pretty excellent at giving very clear directions for param updates :-) Primefac (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Primefac, always appreciate your help and bot :) Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey Primefac, still working on it but have a question for you: The Infobox school has both colors/colours (interchangeable, total use 20,000+) and school_colors/school_colours (interchangeable, total use 1,364). These parameters are for the same thing, only difference is the title: "Color(s)"/"Colour(s)" vs. "School color(s)"/"School colour(s)" — there is a small discussion on the talk to merge these parameters, having "school" is redundant as the article is about the school anyway and because of its far low use. If we renamed school_colors to colors and school_colours to colours, this will work but there will be some duplicate template arguments within that 1,364 total use, and I am happy to sort out the duplicates which will appear in the tracking category and of course other editors will help too. For example this school has school_colours filled in and school_colors underneath not filled in, no colors/colours parameters are there. I checked through random ones using school_colors/school_colours, and they don't have the colors/colours listed. I don't think I've come across one that has all four or one of both types. What would be your solution for this? At the moment I've moved the merge discussion to a separate section which won't be done for now, but maybe it can be done in the rename now, I'm not sure. What you think? Steven (Editor) (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the four variants come about because of various merges. The obvious one is the colours/colors, which I agree should both be kept. As you say, it doesn't make much sense to keep the other two (since they likely came from a merger in the past) and you could probably get away with lumping them all together (temporarily, until the bot run) without any discussion. Primefac (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you're right and what do you mean by lumping them all together? You mean like make school_colors and school_colours an alias of color/colours in the template code? The only issue with this is that we'll end up with more aliases, best to get rid of the school_colors/school_colours and stick with colors/colours. Yeah I'm confused haha Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Set them as aliases now, and when it comes time to clean up duplicate/alternate/unnecessary parameters, they can be removed. Primefac (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you do that in the template code for me please, I can't edit the template, don't have the user right Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, please can you remove the "School" which you added to the display name, so that it's the same Colors/Colours as before (high use name) Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Primefac (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, just checked and there's no duplicate template warning at the top Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC) There's a warning at the top of an article if you use colors and colours and if you use school_colors and school_colours. But if you use colors and school_colors there's no warning and the same for other mixed variations Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yes, didn't see the tracking for clobbered params. Updated. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep that did it, thank you - it's populating the tracking category, albeit very slowly, maybe it'll take some time, sorted around 10 so far. But I'm thinking of maybe going through the 1,300 odd using school_colors/colours and changing them to colors/colours manually so this parameter can then be added for removal, just thinking if it would be worth doing that or not.

There is another same parameter issue in the template: medium_of_language (has terrible aliases of medium, mediums and medium of language) and language — this too has a small discussion on the talk to merge these. Another editor has said the "medium of language" does not make sense, I also agree with this, have noted on there that this name issue was expressed back in 2017 and Wikipedia has a dedicated article titled Medium of instruction.

Checked the parameter usage report, language has 3,680 uses and medium_of_language has 1,213 — I think it would be best to have medium_of_instruction as the new combined successor parameter to replace these and for consistency with article title. I have a feeling there may be a lot of articles that will have both language and medium_of_language with one filled and one blank instance, so I'm thinking maybe you could add medium_of_instruction as a new alias of language, language display name changed to Medium of instruction and the bot will rename language to medium_of_instruction. The medium_of_language will stay separate but its aliases will go as they will all be renamed to medium_of_language, then I will go through the 1,213 and change them to medium_of_instruction, then a future bot run can remove all blank instances of medium_of_language and its aliases. What you think? The other way would be to put them all together as aliases and sort from tracking category but I have a feeling there will be a lot more? Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I find tracking categories to be extremely useful for sussing out things like this, because it makes sorting the pages into "piles" a lot easier than writing fifteen different replacement rules and hoping that you didn't miss anything. As far as parameter names go, I see it as a question of length vs "obviousness of name"; as we discussed with the colour issue, "school_colours" is rather redundant since it's in "infobox school" and there's not much else "colours" could mean. When I see "medium_of_language" I'm not entirely sure what that means; "language" might be a little vague, but while "medium_of_instruction" (or better yet, "language_of_instruction") is more specific it's a little lengthy. I do suppose "language" may be specific enough; I know a student who is in a Spanish immersion program, and if I saw |language=Spanish in a location where English is the primary language, it would tell me right away that this was a school designed to teach in Spanish. Primefac (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

That's true, would you be able put them all as aliases now and I can sort these out in the tracking category? Ultimately there does need to be a name or one chosen from the aliases that will replace all these aliases, but this can be done after the duplicates are sorted out, what you think? Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

If I get a chance I'll get it done later today. Primefac (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you :) Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, a fair amount of duplicate parameters appeared in the category, all been sorted. There is another parameter discussed on the talk for merging — that's the school_roll/roll parameters to be merged with the enrolment/enrollment/students/pupils variation parameters. Please could you make this as an alias and I can sort out any duplicates in the category? Please let me know, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey, not sure if you managed to see this, is this something you would be able to do? This parameter won’t be deleted as it is used mainly for the enrolment data of New Zealand schools, but does need to be made an alias Steven (Editor) (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't; will take a look. Primefac (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey, sorry, maybe I'm just overtired, but am I reading right that you basically want {{{school_roll}}} and {{{roll}}} put into the {{{enrollment}}} set of parameters? Primefac (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep that's right haha :) Steven (Editor) (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I had a look at the diff, in the Check for clobbered parameters part, school_roll and roll is duplicated further down, I think you forgot to remove this haha Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep, thanks. Primefac (talk) 01:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Welcome and that is 3/4 parameters listed for merging on the talk page done and all duplicates have been dealt with. The last one is homepage, url, and website to become aliases – I have a feeling there will be a lot of duplicates for this one and I remember last time we wanted to change homepage and url to website (which is the aim as part of consolidating parameters in the code), we came across duplicate issues. Can you merge these and I will sort out the duplicates, please let me know, thanks Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Please ignore the above, they are already aliases of each other and produce a warning. The established, opened and founded parameters need to be made as aliases as they mean the same thing but the title needs to be same for each parameter, so established will display as Established and opened as Opened. I had a look at the check for clobbered parameters, there is "pupils; number_of_pupils; number of pupils" which needs to be removed as pupils is already there with the other enrolment parameters, and number_of_pupils and number of pupils is not in the template. Please let me know, thanks Steven (Editor) (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, really appreciate everything you are doing :) - I'm glad this one was done last as there is a lot — I'm not sure why these parameters were never put together, I've been going through the duplicates but still more to go. I will let you know of the next steps when I'm finished, hope this is ok with you. I will be starting a discussion after mapframe maps has been implemented (requested another editor if they would be interested to add it and agreed which is awesome) on the removal of pushpin maps altogether, if there is consensus, these too will be parameters for removal in the bot run. My aim is to do as much as possible in one go so this will be a mega Optimus Prime bot task - hope you're still up for it :D Steven (Editor) (talk) 05:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Not a problem, just let me know. Primefac (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Primefac, I've noticed the roll parameter is displaying the same title as the pupils parameter "Number of pupils", it should be "School roll". Could it be because this parameter has two aliases: roll and school_roll? The school_roll alias is going anyway after the bot run so it's not a big deal Steven (Editor) (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

No, it's because when I merged them I didn't change the label #if statements. Currently it's

| label81 = {{#if: {{{enrollment|}}} | Enrollment |<!--
                -->{{#if: {{{enrolment|}}} | Enrolment |<!--
                       -->{{#if: {{{students|}}} | Number of students |<!--
                              -->Number of pupils}}}}}}

If you want school_roll to change the label, I'll need to add in another #if. Should I do that for |school_roll= and |roll=? Primefac (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh I see, yes please do that as this name is used mainly for schools in New Zealand Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Inhyeon wanghu jeon might not have been a copyvio

Also pinging User:Pldx1 who accepted the draft. I think that the article at [2] is a copy of our Wikipedia article. That page is sadly not in Internet Archive, so I can't show concrete proof, but formatting (reference section at the bottom) is Wiki style. Further, that draft is from a series created by a SPA that also created Draft:Seo Joon-hwan that in turn has been replicated at the same website: [3]. And here it is clear this is a copy from us, since they copied our formatting style etc. So if they copied one article, I think it stands to reason they copied the other one too. Most likely, the (unfortunately inactive) editor who submitted those articles 'gave' them at the same time to us and this Korean project, maybe it was a project of that https://library.ltikorea.or.kr/ page (organization behind it) in the first place (where they published some articles on English Wikipedia and then mirrored them on their own pages). (If you reply here, please Echo me, TIA). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that a physical book? I'm not seeing any text on that page, nor any way to view it. Primefac (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

Doesn't this need to be salted after deletion? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so, but if it does it'll pop on my watchlist and I will salt. Primefac (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox settlement wrappers

I read your closing statement at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_21#Template:Infobox_Israel_municipality, where you wrote that there's consensus against wrappers of {{infobox settlement}}. Well, yes – there certainly is that sort of consensus among the small group of editors who dedicate much of their wiki time to infobox consolidation and !voting in TfDs. But if you compare this group with the set of Canadian editors who have opposed the merging of the Canadian wrappers + the Australian editors who are against the merge of the Australian wrappers + the British..., etc, you'll get a group of editors, at least an order of magnitude larger, where the consensus is of a rather different kind. – Uanfala (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a fair point, and I've commented on/clarified my close; while you are correct that there are many opposed to these actions (in some small part, that includes me) there are a very small number of templates that haven't been deleted, indicating that there is a fairly clear consensus against it (even if it just means "a consensus among editors who comment at TFD about infobox wrappers"). Thus, the recommendation to open the discussion up further and move the venue away from the somewhat-insular TFD. Primefac (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Most IS wrappers are scrapped, especially low volume ones. The close reflects that reality. The British one isn't a wrapper, and it has a reason to stay, because it's wildly incompatible with IS at present. It was nominated once in the last decade, and it wasn't even close. The Australian one however is a joke, and completely inconsistent with infobox guidance; it should be promptly deleted. Its continued existence is not based on any technical or visual merits, but a result of procedural craft.

I do feel this wrapper shouldn't have been scrapped yet, but consensus is what it is. A regular problem I feel at TfD is that valuable expert input is required on some templates to achieve 'the correct result'. But the editors who would have useful comments sometimes refrain from making them (perhaps due to lack of confidence in their comments, lack of time to fully vet, or just not wanting to get involved in controversy). Instead, editors who don't spend the time vetting do comment. The result is that TfD results sometimes don't represent what is best for the community. Instead either vocal meritless votes, or no quorums due to complexity. This is visible in a couple of active TfDs right now. This issue is in both directions, keep and delete. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

No kidding; a lot of these discussions hinge on the "well it's difficult so we shouldn't do it because it will be hard" argument, which is nonsense. Hell, I'm getting hammered on a TFD nomination right now where I spent a day making sure everything could be demonstrated as working perfectly, and there is still opposition.

I do realize there are flaws in the process, which is unfortunate, but there's only so far a closer can go to stretch the weight of arguments; I can relist a unanimous-delete discussion where the previous one was a unanimous keep because they contradict each other and need further input, or keep the Canada template because of a heavy consensus in that particular discussion (despite going against the precedent of a dozen similar wrappers), but I can't always go against the consensus just because the template target isn't ideal; if we had to wait for every target to be perfect, we'd never close any TFDs. Primefac (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there have often been silly arguments on both sides of the debate. I also do agree with the benefits of some sort of infobox consolidation for places (though not necessarily the one that is being done here). My own perspective is that of a user who sometime edits articles about settlements. I don't see the current system as fit for purpose: {{infobox settlement}} is a wonderful metatemplate, but using it directly in articles results in bloated code (which makes it more difficult to create new instances of an infobox or to edit existing ones), and shifts a lot of formatting and linking decisions onto individual instances of the template (which leads to inconsistent layout between articles, and sub-optimal linking, both of which are now impossible to correct because of the scale involved). I believe that a lot of long-term problems in the India-Pakistan area could be solved if we had a tailored instance of the infobox template (whether as a wrapper or something else), but I would never put in the effort into that, because it's almost guaranteed that the new infobox would get picked up by the regulars, sent to TfD and unanimously voted into deletion because "all other countries in Asia use infobox settlement". – Uanfala (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Right. This is why I suggested a discussion outside of the TFD space; as demonstrated by the Canada folks, they are very much on top of updates and maintenance of their wrapper, but if they hadn't been notified or noticed the TFD their infobox would likely have been deleted as well.

As I have said elsewhere, wrappers can be extremely useful, and I'm finding more and more as I do these settlement wrapper substs that certain ones really should be kept as wrappers. There is definitely a dichotomy between TFD regulars and "editors at large", so one would need to break that dynamic to affect real change. In other words, if a deletion discussion participant can point to a CENT-advertised RFC saying "these sorts of wrappers should be kept", it has much stronger weight than just "we should consolidate wrappers" (and this, basically, is what saved Canada, because they did have a heavily-attended discussion to point to). Primefac (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I can't help but laugh at your plight, at this point, sorry! It was a mixture of confusing/unfortunate, but it's heading towards slightly amusing now. Heck, even I feel gaslighted reading the discussion, and I don't even have anything to do with the nomination. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

If anything it's keeping the creative juices flowing, because copy/pasting "have you read the nomination?" a dozen times would get tedious, and I'm pretty sure vociferous swearing wouldn't help my cause... so instead I find creative ways to ask people if they really are that blind.

I will say, I'm glad I've turned a few opinions with my replies. Primefac (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Agriculture

Perfect Anelisiwe sibonda (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Jordan

I was about to add ARBPIA and noticed I'm prohibited from adding it. The recent edits were mainly ARBPIA violations and the post-Independence section is full of relevant stuff, and the foreign relations section is also. Maybe I need to go to ARCA. Doug Weller talk 15:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Doug, I'm going to need a lot more context here if you're asking me anything specifically; I have no idea what you're talking about. Primefac (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't add any links. Talk:Jordan has the Arbitration decision. Here are recent edits[4] with several recent ones which are ARBPIA violations.

This bit of the foreign relations is relevant:" Jordan views an independent Palestinian state with the 1967 borders, as part of the two-state solution and of supreme national interest.[157] The ruling Hashemite dynasty has had custodianship over holy sites in Jerusalem since 1924, a position re-inforced in the Israel–Jordan peace treaty. Turmoil in Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa mosque between Israelis and Palestinians created tensions between Jordan and Israel concerning the former's role in protecting the Muslim and Christian sites in Jerusalem." And at least half of the section on its post-independence history. I hope that helps. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I think ARCA is a good idea. Primefac (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Vaynol cattle

I'm confused about why you keep deleting my edit concerning horns on female vaynol cattle? I'm new to this so not sure what is the most appropriate way to contact you to discuss further. Female Vayno cattle do naturally grow horns - they are often removed. The RBST website does not say females have horns as I think you suggested. There is a picture of a female with horns suckling it's calf on the RBST website. Could you give me what you feel is a reference stating female Vaynol cattle don't have horns? I have a long experience of cattle in North Wales and it was seeing this error about female Vaynol cattle that prompted me to register to make the edit. It is not correct to state that female Vaynol Cattle don't have horns. Carrog897 (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Carrog897, the issue is that we have a source that claims females do not have horns. We would need a reliable source that says both male and females have horns in order to start a discussion about which one is correct. Primefac (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Could you point me to the reference that says Vaynol females do have horns as I guarantee there will be a problem with it and we can discuss that when Ivve checked the source? Have you had a chance to look at the RBST website and their Vaynol Cattle page? Clearly they do NOT suggest females don't have horns and you will be able to see the picture I have mentioned before showing a Vaynol Female with very large horns and her calf drinking milk from her udder. Clearly they have horns. I am very keen for you to actually show me the source that says Vaynol Cattle females don't have horns.

Best wishes Carrog Carrog897 (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It's reference #6. I had originally conflated it with ref #4, and I'm not sure it's all that reliable. I've removed the reference and the statement as being unsourced (the absence of info etc). Primefac (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Review

Hello! Thank you so much for your time in reviewing the draft - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kim_Myung_Jun. We already edited it again and replaced the sources as per your comment. When you have time, just wondering if you can review it again please? Thank you so much again. Aichris (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks a lot better! I tend to not re-review drafts (mainly to avoid bias) and let a different reviewer take a look at it, but good luck! Primefac (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I see. Thank you so much. I hope it can reviewed by another reviewer soon. Have a great day! Aichris (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Question about TFD

Why could Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 3#Template:Catalan name NOT be relisted? -St3095 ^(?) 15:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not that it cannot or should not be relisted, but as a participant in the discussion you should not be performing any "administrative"-type actions (per WP:INVOLVED). Primefac (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: How can I relist another discussions? -St3095 ^(?) 15:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

If you're thinking about getting involved in XFD, I would suggest installing the WP:XFDcloser gadget, which automates a large amount of the process (and saves you having to learn all of the rules for the different venues). I would also definitely recommend reading through WP:NAC, as it has some pretty good advice about when (and when not) to close a discussion as a non-admin. My talk page is always open if you have questions about any of the steps/processes. Primefac (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: I've installed the gadget by ticking XFDcloser on Special:Preferences § Gadgets. -St3095 ^(?) 08:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Great. You still shouldn't be relisting discussions in which you've participated. Primefac (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: Thanks. -St3095 ^(?) 10:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

Hello Primefac. This is Tryme99. How are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TryMe99 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine, thanks for asking. Primefac (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Name of the infobox

Hello. Thanks for merging the templates I submitted. I think the infobox should be called "Infobox papal document" instead of "papal proclamation", like in the French and Italian WP ("Document pontifical", "Documento papale"). Also, I advise that you add a "type" parameter, so that one can type the type of document (motu proprio, Apostolic constitution, etc.). Veverve (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you add "Motu proprio" to the types? it is a type of document, see also Motu proprio. Veverve (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure. You're welcome to continue making changes and improvements as you see fit. I would also suggest updating the /doc, in particular the TemplateData, to reflect recent changes to the template. Primefac (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

My coding skills are very much below average, so I cannot fix complicated issues. Therefore, I am reporting to you that there is a problem with {{{signature hour}}}, e.g. see the value at "Signature date" at Evangelii gaudium. Veverve (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough! Always happy to help out when asked. I'll note that the signature hour issue seems to have fixed itself (likely a cache issue). Primefac (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I have updated the template as well as the documentation. However, the language of the title along with its translation does not display anymore. Could you help once again? Veverve (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the only thing you changed in the template itself was the TemplateData (which should be in the /doc subpage). What are you trying to change in the template itself? Primefac (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I have tried to add the aliases in the Template data. It appears the new parameters I used (to put the unclear ones as aliases) do not display. I believe the template data needs to be on the template page, as otherwise the parameters marked as suggested or required are not displayed once the template is inserted using the WP editor interface. Veverve (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The aliases, based on Wikipedia:TemplateData/Tutorial, are not documented in a separate parameter object. Basically, this means that while the TemplateData recognizes them as valid parameters, they won't show up on the parameter list. This kinda makes sense, if you think about it; you really only want one "main" parameter, with the alternates being for things like alternate spellings (color/colour) or old/deprecated uses (like removing "title" in favour of "name"). Primefac (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

To make it clear: I wanted some parameters to show up directly when inserted, e.g. the Infobox film has "Image file", etc. presented directly to the user as soon as "add template" is pressed. This is what I wanted for some parameters of the Papal document infobox. Apparently, I just needed to wait if I put the TemplateData on the doc page, and those parameters would show up the way I want. Sorry.

As for the bug, I decided to use cleared names for the parameters, while keeping the former parameters as aliases in order not to break the infoboxes. All the new parameters seem to work well apart from the ones for the laguage of the title and its translation. I have been trying to find where the error in the code is, but to no avail: instead of displaying "[language] for '[translation of the title]' ", it shows nothing. Veverve (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Which page(s) are you seeing this on? Primefac (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

At Template:Infobox papal document/doc in the infobox used as an example (Spe salvi). A "Latin for 'Saved in Hope' " should be displayed, e.g. like in the infobox here which still uses the "translation" and "language" parameters instead of the new "title language" and "translation of title". Veverve (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The /doc is using |title language=, but the template takes either |language= or |language of title=. Primefac (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that is why... sorry for bothering you for such a simple fix! Veverve (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

No worries, better a simple fix than something irreparable! Primefac (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

PrimeBOT infobox issue

For Aloysio de Andrade Faria, the bot changed the networth field from "US$1.7" to "US .7" billion. Have fixed it, but it is reasonable to suppose that this is not the only article affected. Edwardx (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh bloody hell. This is an AWB error that was supposed to be fixed by now. I will go through the edit log for this run and see if there are any others that need fixing. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Same problem with Allan Gray (investor), so it is widespread. Edwardx (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Not really widespread, I'm only seeing about 10 potential cases. Primefac (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Update: I've fixed the affected pages and worked out a patch for the issue. Thanks again for the note. Primefac (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt attention. Edwardx (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

PrimeBOT Task 30

Hello, there appears to be a problem with performing Task 30 in this edit. A $1 is added to the start of a reference date field. Keith D (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

A GIGO issue, but I've built in a workaround. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Bot is also removing ref tags, diffs - Samuel J. Palmisano, Matthew Gravelle, Mary Connealy, Janae Kroc, William D. Cohan (which wrecks the infobox formatting), and removing list-defined references without removing the corresponding ref in the references section, diffs - Godfrey Cambridge, Antonio Frasconi, Dave Hughes (producer), Antonio Frasconi, plus a few others I've fixed. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

As far as the first issue, the last time it happened I was told (upon asking those more knowledgeable than I) that this was an unsolvable GIGO issue. I think I might have to find a way to prove them wrong since it keeps happening. As far as the second issue, AWB has (as far as I'm aware) no way of telling if a removed named reference was the only instance thus causing an error. Will look into that further.

For both instances, though, as soon as I'm back at my main machine later today I will look through the changelog from the bot run and find/fix the broken pages. Primefac (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Help with disruptive IP

Hey, can you help me out? User talk:73.251.23.37 has been going around and changing the cast order on many comic related season articles. They don't use edit summaries, don't use the talk page and don't seem to care. Cleaning after them is very time consuming. --Gonnym (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. Primefac (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. --Gonnym (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Certification table cleanup, PrimeBOT Task 30

Hi Primefac. I hope I'm finding you well in these troubling times. Below is what I believe is a task suitble for PrimeBOT Task 30. This was discussed briefly at Template talk:Certification Table Entry#Footnote cleanup effort and I see no reason why there would not be unanimous agreement to do it. Ideally, this would have been solved by a bot that is run once a week or so, but since this would need much effort, I would like to do a manual run and fix it once, and I thought PrimeBOT Task 30 covers this issue.

The issue I am trying to solve is mismatching between the usage of two templates, {{Certification Table Entry}} and {{Certification Table Bottom}}. The former leaves footnote markers by marking figures as either sales, shipments or streaming. The second one is for leaving the footnote itself at the table bottom. For example:

Region	Certification	Certified units/sales
Germany (BVMI)	2× Platinum	1,000,000‡
* Sales figures based on certification alone.

As you can see, mismatch is possible, and in fact is quite common, since I created the template in 2011 or so, and consumption patterns have changed considerably. In order to cleanup cases of mismatch I created six automatically-populated categories, and I saved the results.

Usage category	Footnote category	Usage file	Footnote file
Category:Pages using certification Table Entry with sales figures (7,299)	Category:Pages using certification Table Entry with sales footnote (7,366)	User:Muhandes/SalesUsage	User:Muhandes/SalesFootnote
Category:Pages using certification Table Entry with shipments figures (15,912)	Category:Pages using certification Table Entry with shipments footnote (16,069)	User:Muhandes/ShipmentsUsage	User:Muhandes/ShipmentsFootnote
Category:Pages using certification Table Entry with streaming figures (16,584)	Category:Pages using certification Table Entry with streaming footnote (16,456)	User:Muhandes/StreamingUsage	User:Muhandes/StreamingFootnote

I then did simple content comparison (diff) between them and saved the results in six files.

File	Fix to {{Certification Table Bottom}}
User:Muhandes/SalesAdd (693)	Remove |nosales=
User:Muhandes/SalesRemove (6438)	Add |nosales=true, unless there is already a |nosales=
User:Muhandes/ShipmentsAdd (318)	Remove |noshipments=
User:Muhandes/ShipmentsRemove (4418)	Add |noshipments=true, unless there is already a |noshipments=
User:Muhandes/StreamingAdd (1639)	Add |streaming=true, unless there is already a |streaming=
User:Muhandes/StreamingRemove (765)	Remove |streaming=

I sampled each of the six files and found no errors. There are two caveats I can think of. One is when there is more than one instance of {{Certification Table Bottom}} in the page, which is quite rare. The second is when there is no {{Certification Table Bottom}} at all, which I also saw done once or twice. Both cases need to be be fixed manually. I hope this is indeed a task suitable for PrimeBOT Task 30, please let me know. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick reply to say that I've seen this, and will try to get a good look at it in the next day or so in order to give an informed opinion. Primefac (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for your work with G12 deletions! Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 21:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Aww, thanks! Primefac (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)