User talk:Primefac

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 05:43, 3 June 2017 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Primefac/Archive 28) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

StatCrunch

Primefac, Thanks for the feedback on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:StatCrunch. The citation overkill happened because previous reviewers kept asking for more references. I hope you can help me navigate this. I've been struggling with this for months. Here's where I am coming from. I would like to include StatCrunch in two other Wikipedia pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statistical_packages and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_statistical_packages

StatCrunch is used by several hundred thousand users each year. It is a more substantial and more widely used statistics package than most of those already listed in these two articles. But I think that in order to be included in either of these pages, I need to be able to point to a Wikipedia article on StatCrunch, or else the change will be rejected. What advice can you give me? Thanks, Mark Barton MarkBarton (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MarkBarton, I have created StatCrunch, but it is just a redirect to Pearson PLC#2010 to 2020 (I added a paragraph about StatCrunch so that it's a valid redirect). This will give you the opportunity to list it at List of statistical packages and Comparison of statistical packages while your page is still in the Draft space.
As far as the draft itself goes, I think the most important thing is to find sources that talk about StatCrunch, not just textbooks that describe how to use it (or worse, just give a few sentences saying that it exists). I'm honestly not sure whether it is a notable topic, but I haven't done any deep digging to find sources. Let me know if you have any other questions. Primefac (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, Thanks for digging into this. I appreciate that you are trying to do this correctly.

I agree with the purging or demotion of references that aren't appropriate, thanks for cleaning it up. I'm new at this.

Disclosure: I work for Pearson as a software developer. I've spent the last 4 years full-time on StatCrunch, adding features and improving it, as part of a team.

Your solution of adding the line to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_PLC#2010_to_2020 makes me uncomfortable because I think it introduces information at too fine a granularity for the Pearson PLC article. Pearson PLC has over 5 billion dollars a year in revenue, and StatCrunch is well under one percent of that, I would guess, so I think that if StatCrunch is mentioned at all, it should be exceedingly brief. I think it might be more appropriate to drop that completely and to have the separate StatCrunch Wikipedia article linked from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_Education under the Technology Products section, in the same way that MyMathLab is linked to its own Wikipedia entry from that section.

I don't fully understand the criteria for being "notable", but I would make the case for StatCrunch having its own Wikipedia entry based on these two things, primarily on the first:

  1. Its impact on over a million people. Over the last decade, well over a million college students, mostly in Stat 101 classes, have invested time and effort over the course of the semester in learning to use StatCrunch as their primary statistical package. It is part of their college experience. Some of those students continue to use StatCrunch as an analysis tool in their professional lives after leaving college.
  2. The many thousands of hours of effort invested in developing the product. Dr. Webster West put over 1,000 hours per year into this for over a decade on his own. A team of three, including Dr. West and myself, carried it forward full-time after that, and the team has now expanded since the acquisition by Pearson. There is continued investment in developing StatCrunch, and continued growth in the number of users each semester.

Thanks again for working with me to get this right. MarkBarton (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've shifted it to a subsection of Pearson Education (and removed it from the PLC article).
As for notability - our "Golden Rule" is to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are not directly connected to the subject. Here's the issue - you give two fairly valid points about its potential notability, but none of the sources you've provided actually verify those facts. The references (now under "Further reading") simply talk about how to use StatCrunch or give a (very) brief outline of what it is. If you want to demonstrate notability you'll need to find non-textbook references that talk about its impact and why it's more than just a part of a university course. Take TI-83 series for example: while some of the references fairly standard reviews (and the article could probably use some overall fixing) there are also refs like this article that talk about the monetary impact of the TI-83. Offline sources are fine, too, so don't worry if you can't find a URL for something. I think if you found a few articles like the one I linked above, your draft will be in much better shape. Primefac (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of my article about Dacca Overseas Limited

Hello Primefac! Thankyou for your feed about my article on Dacca Overseas Limited. The article seems to be protected now, and wikipedia is saying only admins can edit it... I was wondering is there a way to request an article to be written by the admins or is there a way to unlock the article again? Thanks

Kdayef (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kdayef, I honestly don't recall giving you any advice about Dacca, but I will now! If you're having trouble writing an article, I highly suggest using the Article Wizard to create a Draft. Drafts are great because after you submit them for review, an experienced editor will take a look at the page and, if necessary, give you feedback on how to further improve it. Drafts are much less likely to be deleted for not meeting our standards. Good luck! If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance.Template:Z163 Primefac (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Information icon Hello, I'm Petrb. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to User_talk:Petrb— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Petrb (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Petrb, you realize you just undid vandalism on your own talk page, right? Primefac (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry, I see it now, I was doing a showcase on Wikimedia Hackathon in front of some people, so I didn't really have much time looking into the details, probably got confused and reverted wrong edit. Thank you for help! Petrb (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protected template edit request

I see you responded to the last edit request on Template talk:Infobox ice hockey team season back in January after the templates were merged. Mind taking a look at mine? The parameter is used on hundreds of NHL team season infoboxes that no longer work. Thank you. Yosemiter (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Primefac. You have new messages at Herostratus's talk page.
Message added 05:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

{{Infobox Tour Rugby}}

Hi, if and when you get a chance can you look at this template and specifically the alignment of data in columns. When there are more than 9 matches played the alignments seem to go to pot, I guess it's the double digits and padding between columns. The example on the infobox page shows this. Thanks. Nthep (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nthep, not sure what I'm looking at. The "usage" infobox is really wide because the parameters are really wide, and it only takes 8 matches anyway. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I should have been more specific. If you look at Template:Infobox Tour Rugby#Example and the NZ tour details used there. The first row of data reads 35 34 0 1 but the 34 0 1 do not line up with the column headings of W D L in the header row. Nthep (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right, missed that. I'll see what I can do. Primefac (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed. Primefac (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Star man, that's a beer I owe you if we ever meet up. Nthep (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne City FC (W-League)/Template:Melbourne City W-League Current Squad listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Melbourne City FC (W-League)/Template:Melbourne City W-League Current Squad. Since you had some involvement with the Melbourne City FC (W-League)/Template:Melbourne City W-League Current Squad redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pppery 19:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

query re national coverage, reliable, independent...

please check the SMH and numerous (freely accessible) significant reliable sources which are completely independent of the subject... Skinduptruk (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skinduptruk, what's this about? Primefac (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kurt_Pudniks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinduptruk (talk • contribs) 11:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Skinduptruk, the issue is not that the sources aren't independent, the issue is that the sources are all pertaining to an election that he did not win. Per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:POLOUTCOMES people who unsuccessfully run for office are not generally considered notable. The "significant independent coverage" that is required for these individuals must be from outside the political sphere to show that they are independently notable from the campaign. Primefac (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Osteopathy

Hi. Trying to get approval for the Institute of Osteopathy page. Hopefully I've removed anything that could be deemed as copyrighted (although I have approval to use). Have little experience of editing wiki pages, so I'm not sure if I'm missing a step or just need to be patient - which is not a problem if so. Happy to fix anything that may be wrong with it. Also, entirely unrelated, I'm a fellow Glasgow grad.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by EGW85 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EGW85, the copyvio has been removed, but now you need to add independent reliable sources that can verify the content on the page. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks again. I've added references as best I can at this stage, if these aren't up to scratch then I'll have to do some work with other organisations to ask them to develop sources that can be used - I'm surprised I couldn't find anything better already tbh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EGW85 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:10:16, 24 May 2017 review of submission by Dansmo


Hello, we have cleaned up the references per feedback. I'm not sure if the format is correct. Before I clicked to resubmit I thought it I'd ask for some feedback... Please can you take a look and let me know if the additional, independent references, help get this article approved and if the format is okay?

Sorry, haven't had time to look at this. Looks like it's been resubmitted. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - for information, please

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gurbaksh_Chahal&diff=prev&oldid=782248343 --Bhadani (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Just saw it in my watchlist and putting here so you know what's going on without having to click the link. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Whitney Lynn & Draft:Morgan Simon

Hi, it has come to my attention that you have put two drafts, Draft:Whitney Lynn & Draft:Morgan Simon, under review and have left them like that. Plum3600 (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plum3600, I don't have any drafts under review. It looks like Winged Blades of Godric and Curb Safe Charmer marked them under review, respectively. If you look at the source code, you'll see the AFC template has a |reviewer= parameter, which lists the reviewer in question. You're welcome to contact these editors individually, but I've pinged them so it might be unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:08:42, 26 May 2017 review of submission by Cogic2

Please help me understand what you were looking for. Also, I looked up several other articles on bishops, and noted that the primary information regarding them was regarding becoming bishops with a little else detailing their notability. Please give clarity as to why a Catholic bishop is considered notable for simply being a bishop but a COGIC Bishop would not be

Cogic2, I invite you to check out WP:CLERGY. While it is true that most bishops are notable because of their status, it is generally for bishops of major religions. Pentecostalist denominations are specifically mentioned as needing significant coverage in third-party sources to be considered notable. You're not far off, to be honest, and it's really just the lack of sourcing. Since there are a few paragraphs that don't have any references, these might be good places to add such sources. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Masslive is the online presence of the Republican Newspaper, a reliable source. Also, even as Catholic bishops with little notability outside the church are deemed notable enough to be included in wikipedia, shouldn't bishops in the largest Pentecostal denomination in nation also be deemed notable for their service in the church?
Please be advised that masslive.com is the online presence of The Republican Newspaper, part of Newhouse Newspapers. It is the largest newspaper in the region and should be considered a reliable source even as you noted regarding the Valley Advocate, which is a smaller weekly regional paper. Many of the references are attributed to masslive.
Also, please note the significance of the Church Of God In Christ, the largest Pentecostal denomination in the U.S. Even as Catholic bishops are deemed notable simply because the serve a Catholic diocese, shouldn't COGIC bishops be deemed notable for serving jurisdictions in their denomination as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogic2 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have started to do some editing and adding additional sources, wanted to know if I'm on the right track. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogic2 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cogic2, the issue was not with the sources, but with the coverage given by those sources. A publication by the Church for the Church is going to give announcements regarding the promotion of clergy. While these sources are perfectly acceptable for verifying facts, they don't do much for demonstrating notability. And, as mentioned, WP:CLERGY specifically lists Pentecostals as the exception to the "most clergy are notable" guideline. I see that you've significantly expanded the draft, so it would appear that you've taken the above into consideration. Good luck if/when you resubmit. Primefac (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, just not sure which source you're referring to as a church source covering the church. The main source used prior to recent edits was masslive, which is the online presence of the main newspaper in Western MA and not a church publication. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjones3927 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, interesting. I saw "Mass" and thought "church" not "state". My mistake. Still not sure it counts as anything above routine coverage, but the fact that it's not a church publication certainly helps. Primefac (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I understand the confusion. It is specifically, the Springfield Republican Newspaper, which has extensively covered the subject of the article. Is it possible to modify the remarks in your rejection notes so when it is resubmitted, the next reviewer doesn't make the same assumption based on your notes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjones3927 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Primefac (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rich unblocked

I've unblocked Rich per reasoning at AN/I. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faydee

Hi, can you just confirm that the picture I uploaded of him is okay for Wikipedia? Plum3600 (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exoplanets

Please move List of exoplanets to Lists of exoplanets. I've tagged the redirect for speedy deletion already but I know that's an inefficient way to get the job done. Holy Goo (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Goo, I assume your intention then is to move List of exoplanets (full) to List of exoplanets? Primefac (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. List of exoplanets is a list of lists. The name has to be in the plural form. Holy Goo (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So then you're not going to move the full list to list of exoplanets?
And, to further the question, why wouldn't we then move List of minor planets to Lists of minor planets? It's the same thing (generally speaking). Primefac (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not, and I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.
And yes. In theory, list of minor planets should be moved as well, since it is not a list, but rather, a list of lists. Holy Goo (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Goo, not sure if a discussion at WT:AST would suffice or if it should be listed as a proper RM, but I think a discussion should take place as to where everything should end up. I don't seem much reason to move the list but not the full list. Primefac (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The full list doesn't have to be moved because it is in fact a list, not a list of lists. Holy Goo (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it's a transclusion of lists, but I was specifically thinking that if we move List of exoplanets to Lists of exoplanets, then we should follow that up with moving List of exoplanets (full) to List of exoplanets because of the unnecessary disambiguator. Again, I think we're getting into the realm of needing more input from other editors, because I'm not convinced anything needs to be moved. Primefac (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeBot is AWESOME

Seriously - I *love* this edit at George Washington. When I first looked at it I was puzzled but then I realized it stripped out that UTM crap. I'm always stripping out extraneous code from URLs - like the unneeded search-term code left over after I've searched within a Google Book. Thank you so much - when you see your bot tell it thanks for me. Shearonink (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion of Draft:Isik Abla

Hi, Primefac. I contested the SD of Draft:Isik Alba, so I don't think you were supposed to delete it. Could you restore it, please? :) Newimpartial (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, you contested the copyvio/G12 deletion, and you made a valid point: not everything was a copyright violation. However, when I went to check the rest of the content, I found it was purely promotional, with phrases like Due to her desire to spread the Gospel on a wider scale and to ignite the fire for revival in the church... and Her message of hope, love and redemption, found only in a loving God, resonates and continues.... There were no references, and really not much in the way of usable information. In cases like these, it's better to start from scratch with good references. Primefac (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But I am not sure that you are grasping the whole context here: this was a recently rejected AfC submission, and the rejection was not made on the grounds of copyright violation. In that context, a SD for WP:COPYVIO goes against WP:BITE and the purposes of the project, I believe. All I am asking is for the delete to be reverted, and then it could go through the more appropriate process, MfD, if needed. Newimpartial (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fix?Newimpartial (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll get right on undeleting the article so that we can waste everyone's time at MFD and delete the article. Sounds lovely. I've checked through a few of your XFD conversations (and your talk page), and it's clear that I'm not going to convince you that I know what I'm doing. Personally, I think you should leave speedy deletions to the admins, because it's part of our job to determine if the CSD tags are placed correctly, but unless you start being disruptive about it I have no call to stop you. Primefac (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, except that the admin in question had just placed four incorrect SD tags before the one you acted on. So I was looking at this one, and lodged my objection on the talk page that you deleted - and then you deleted it. Somehow I don't think that was the correct procedure, Admin. Newimpartial (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Objecting to a speedy deletion tag does not automatically mean that the CSD is removed. It simply means that you have an interest in saving the page. As I said above - you made your point convincingly for the G12 to be overturned. I overturned it. And then I deleted the page as spam. Primefac (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, you dont seem to understand that we have a legal obligation to remove copyvio immediately, regardless of whether its BITEY or not. In addition, something that blatantly spammy needs to go. Speedy deletion is for content that is unsalvageable, and there was nothing remotely salvagable about that draft. People, new orbnot, should already know that copyvio isnt acceptable anywhere. Waggie (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then the policy is to delete the WP:COPYVIO content, is it not? Not to delete the page? Anyway, I have put in a request for review to clear this up. The person who nominated this page for SD made a number of mistaken nominations in the same session, so I just wanted to see it discussed properly. If I am mistaken about the appropriateness of this particular deletion, then I apologize, but Primefac has also in turn made a number of statements today at MfC that are against WP:CONSENSUS, so I am having difficulty trusting their judgement.Newimpartial (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This nonsense is now at ANi Legacypac (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, including these edits. <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Vulcan1812/Bagley,_Alabama&action=history>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legacypac&curid=26467366&diff=782648198&oldid=782647878>Newimpartial (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Draft:Isik Abla

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:Isik Abla. 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. Newimpartial (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough re: Bludgeon. I have no intention to reply to every comment, but I was having difficulty giving an account of my reasoning because of the edit conflicts. You have friends. :) Newimpartial (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Snack Break at the Poodle Factory

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You might want to recheck that deletion. Not only did you delete a page I had already declined to delete (and thus allowed admin shopping), it also did not meet A9 on both counts: It's a recording by a band of a notable musician and it contained two reliable sources covering the album. Regards SoWhy 08:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, total cruise control action there. Saw there wasn't a "band page" (i.e. Midget Handjob) and that the Rolling Stone was mostly not about the album, and just went with it. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, that's what trouts are for Thanks for restoring it! Regards SoWhy 13:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beecher High School (Michigan) and WP:ORG

I fail to see your logic in prodding the above article. There are not one but two independent sources on the article and absolutely nothing in the recent RfC changed the general assumption that multiple independent sources exist. As a matter of fact, US, Canadian, British and Australian schools were specifically mentioned in the close affirming that assumption. A quite lazy (or ignorant) new editor created this and several other school articles with just an infobox. My data connection is slow until Tuesday, so I'm trying to flesh them out a little now and more when my data speed increases. Fyi, this school is in suburban Flint, one of the largest cities in Michigan. John from Idegon (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak to any other country, but every single high school in the US will meet GNG (ORG is specifically not required) on athletics alone. Please don't waste people's time with deletion processes on school articles. John from Idegon (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John from Idegon I'm not sure I follow your logic. How will all high schools meet GNG? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that and I also did say how. Almost all US papers have a sports section. In all but the largest cities, at least two days a week, that sports section is devoted to high school sports. Not just game results, but detailed description of individual games, discussion in detail of individual programs, articles about particularly successful coaches, discussions of rivalries etc. If a newspaper happens to be in a competitive market, coverage of local sports is frequently the deciding factor on which paper to buy. Every state has a tournament system for all sanctioned sports. So even a small school in Podunk will get covered in a fairly major paper when it has successes in the tournament. There are enough sanctioned sports in the US that virtually every school has a chance to succeed at something. Sports like cross country, tennis, and golf require very little capital outlay for a school so even the poorest schools can and do have successes. Both the USA Today and the Sporting News cover high school sports. The coverage of athletics in US schools alone is enough to guarantee GNG. However, it is certain that local papers will cover budgetary and taxation issues, construction, staff issues and the inevitable crime on the campus. Some of the more local papers aren't indexed on Google. Many midsized city's papers aren't indexed prior to the turn of the century. Sources only have to exist. There is nothing saying they have to be able to be found easily. Logic dictates they are there. I understand the skepticism people not from the US have about the importance of high school athletics. I cannot find a link to the sources for this, but in the early 80s, a high school team from a very small town in SW Michigan had a very successful football team (Mendon). They went to the state tournament in Pontiac at the stadium the Detroit Lions played in at the time and literally (no hyperbole at all), every single citizen in the village left town and attended the game, nearly 200 miles away. I know that for certain because I was a volunteer firefighter in a neighboring village and spent that day in their firehouse so all the firefighters could go. This fact was covered in three television markets, including Detroit, which at the time was the fifth largest city in the country. It seems somewhat nonsensical to me, but that exemplifies how Americans feel about high school sports. Friday Night Lights is fictionalized; it is not fiction. John from Idegon (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John from Idegon You did say that above. "every single high school in the US will meet GNG". But regarding the other stuff, GNG will not always be met. Coverage in local papers is not really significant and coverage of every game is routine... and we routinely delete stuff that has quite a lot of coverage in local papers for both of the reasons i've already mentioned. Saying that all HS will meet GNG is wrong and silly. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)@John from Idegon::--Did this massive enlightment reach out to you after this edit?Seriously, prodding an article which had just enough to identify itself as a school and then following up with this advice is pretty..... Winged Blades Godric 05:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have argued both ways about coverage from local papers. I do not see it as a principle; I see it as supporting a decision on whether we want to cover the topic or not, based upon our idea of what an encyclopedia ought to be. That it can so easily be argued both ways shows the practical uselessness of the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 14:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel White

What did I do wrong for it to be deleted? Can I remove something to get it reinstated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakralamn (talk • contribs) 17:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this has been recreated without the copyright violation. Good luck. Primefac (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

added Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
removed ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dated

Hello again. I disagree with the deletion. I have often used "dated", so I don't have to date every maintenance template. I don't rely on bots too much. --George Ho (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho, the result of the deletion (and subsequent action) was that you don't have to date every maintenance template. They are now all going to be updated by a bot if there is no date. Thus, you don't have to actually change your habits. Primefac (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.... I don't know. Who would fix the bot that does automatically date maintenance tags if the bot operation is inactive? I don't want to conclude that the decision would encourage lethargy and too much reliance on bots. However, I am worried. Also, TfD has very low participation. Why not undelete? --George Ho (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to request deletion review, but three people (one being the creator of the template) were in favour of deletion (and there was no opposition) so I'm not overly inclined to undelete just on the off chance that Anomie gets hit by a bus and AnomieBOT stops working the next day. Primefac (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh... I didn't know that I can type in {{subst:cleanup}}, which can automatically transclude the tag and the date. Nifty. I almost filed for DRV, but then I changed my mind after realizing what "subst" does. --George Ho (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A fact I explicitly stated in my tfd nomination. Pppery 02:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page gnome) The Cleanup documentation may need an update though: It says that the template should not be substituted. On the other hand if I substitute it as a test, the end result is it substituting to another unsubstituted version (itself), so it's safe in this case (with the side effect noted above)... —PaleoNeonate - 02:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 3. —Cryptic 04:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vladyslav Nossov

Hello. After your edit on the page Vladyslav Nossov only his second convocation is shown, first is not shown. Why Template:Infobox Ukrainian legislative office is okay here, here, here and here but not okay in Vladyslav Nossov? --TohaomgTohaomg (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tohaomg, I made a mistake in that edit, which I have since corrected. {{Infobox Ukrainian legislative office}} is being deleted, but it has to be manually folded into {{infobox officeholder}}, which is why there are still some pages using it. Primefac (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Primefac&oldid=783570929"