User talk:Plastikspork

{{Admin dashboard}}

General Notes

Nielsen Ratings

Posted copyright warning for Nielsen Media.

Is IMDB a reliable source?

1. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 17#Is IMDb a reliable_source?
2. Wikipedia:Citing IMDb

Since or Present

The form "since 1996" should be used in article text while the form "1996–present" is preferred in infoboxes.

— Wikipedia:MOSDATE#Other date ranges

Prefix search

• https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/

Talkback

Don't want to create a new thread? Drop your talkback template here:

Hello, Plastikspork. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:AutoEd.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Plastikspork. You have new messages at Bigboipcf's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Plastikspork. You have new messages at Template talk:Big Brother housemates.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Request for comment

I noticed you are one of hte regulars at wp:tfd. Would you care to comment on my ideas in Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_deletion#Category?

Tibetan Buddhism infobox

Hi. I have a request. Can you build an infobox for Tibetan Buddhist monastery? It may need its own infobox because of the high number of transliterations and specifications it requires. See Template:Infobox Tibetan Buddhist monastery. However, if you could find a way to add parameters to the {{Infobox religious building}} I'd be happy to use providing you can develop it to the specifications given in Template:Infobox Tibetan Buddhist monastery. If you can't can you please create a template for use? Himalayan 14:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I will have a look in a bit. It appears there is also {{infobox monastery}}, which could be potentially modified as well. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Help! Himalayan 19:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

How's that? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Italian communes

You did know when you started that gargantuan task that there were 8,100 of them? Anyway congratulations on the excellent work. Cheers, Ian Spackman (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

When I loaded up the task in AWB, it found about 7500 of them, which means there are many without infoboxes at all. I have been adding infoboxes whenever I spot such a case. In fact, I wrote a translator which translates infoboxes from the Italian wikipedia to use {{infobox Italian comune}}. This makes the job go pretty quickly. I am still trying to figure out the best way to get a list of all the comune pages without infoboxes, without going though region by region. My AWB account had over 16,000 edits just last month. It will probably take another few weeks (or perhaps a couple months) to finish all the clean up tasks. Luckily, it's almost entirely automated. If there is some cleanup task that I am missing, let me know. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I will certainly remember that offer! My little contribution is what I believe to be an accurate list of the 8,100 communes: if you need it in a different format, or with links [some of them redirects] to their Italian Wikipedia articles, that will be no problem. We have articles on them all, or rather each has an article purporting to be about it: at least one of the articles I had to check had been unilaterally changed from being an article about an Italian commune to one about an Arab tribe in Pakistan, another had been redirected to an article about its beach district (‘it's very hot!’), etc. etc. Cheers Ian Spackman (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection level

So what did you do to {{Tfd}} in the end? You know I hold semi-protection is enough? Debresser (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to step it down to semi-protection if you want to make some changes. Just let me know. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have made all the changes I wanted through editprotected request and with my "partner" Rich Farmbrough. I just happen to think that this template isn't in use enough to be fully protected. I can't find out who was the protection editor, or I would have written him about this. Of course, if you disagree with me, feel free to leave the protection in place. I am, after all, only stating my opinion. Debresser (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I counted around 1200 transclusions, which some may consider high-use. I could go either way. If someone requested unprotection at WP:RFP, I would support stepping down the protection level. Or, if someone made an edit request, I would support stepping down the protection so edits could be made. I really don't care either way. When I made the change to the protection level, I thought it was one of the tfd templates which is always substituted. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That is because editors nominating templates for deletion aren't carefull to use <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags. I'm not just saying so, I checked this. Debresser (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If the tag is put inside a <noinclude>...</noinclude>, then a wider audience is not aware that the template is being considered for deletion. Of course, for some inline templates, not using <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags creates some very unreadable pages, with disruptive newlines. I agree that the number of transclusions is not just restricted to the templates themselves. Again, I don't think 1200 is too many for the template to be simply semi-protected. So, I basically agree with you, but I don't see a particular reason to change the protection level right now. Any reasonable request to edit the template would cause me to change my mind. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I posted at Wikipedia:Rfp#Template:Tfd_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29. Debresser (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, we are down to around 700 transclusions. And I'm not finished yet. Debresser (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Make that around 50. Debresser (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It's fine to put the <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the {{tfd}} for inline templates, but not the best idea for other templates (like infoboxes). The idea is to allow the tag to transclude to alert other editors to the discussion. If the addition of the tag causes the article be unreadable, then by all means stick it inside a <noinclude>...</noinclude>, but otherwise, I would leave it as is. Thanks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

tfd unprotection request at WP:RFPP

Hello, Plastikspork. You have new messages at WP:RFPP.
Message added 06:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Can you weigh in on the discussion about lowering protection on Tfd that is/needs to happen at WP:RFPP? Curious what you thoughts are before acting on it. tedder (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Military Structure

HI. Please replace the dot pin with File:Castle.svg as used on German wiki. Looks better for castle location. Himalayan 22:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. We will see if anyone complains. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, the Tibetan infobox looks fantastic!!! O if nobody likes the red castle I can make a black one instead... Himalayan 11:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

See Likir Monastery and Tashilhunpo. Looking good? Such some minor tweaks. Can you add banner sections (like the Tibetan and Chinese headers) for "Location" (above the map) and then above the founded by section a "Monastery information" section. Also can you add another photo section to give the possibility of having two photos and give the infobox a gold border? Should look perfect then. Oh one thing. I wanted to a [[Template:Location map India Jammu Kashmir. However the odd way the indian jurisdiction have things organized there is not one as such, although I would like to use the state locator map like Leh. How do we go about this? Himalayan 12:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks great thanks. One last problem is location maps. I've created one for Tibet here but I don't have the coordinates. Do you know how to add the correct position coordinates using google earth? I'd ask my old buddy MJC detroit but he is never around these days.. If we could work out the coordinates for File:Tibet&neighbors.svg Himalayan 15:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Nordnordwest on German wiki gave me the coordinates, however he said that the rpojection of the map is not fully correct. However he said the map works for places nearer the center like Lhasa. See Potala Palace -looks in exactly the right place Lhasa is to me... Himalayan 18:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yuck, I just tried Rutog which is one of the westernmost towns in Tibet near the border. However the pin displayed it several hundreds kilometres east just west of Lhasa!! It seems to be working though for the Lhasa monasteries Himalayan 18:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's probably a problem with the map projection. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. The previous northern digits ofr 41 worked better, your 39 seems to place the places in Lhasa further awy from where they are... Himalayan 19:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess we'll just have to wait now for some accurate svg pin locator maps for all the Chinese provinces. One could use do with some decent ones for the Indian states too, not a fan of the current colored maps. I mean at least they are state maps but the rendering looks very amateurish.. See what I mean... Himalayan 19:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

A development. I've created a pin map for Sichuan. If the projection turns out to be fairly decent and coordinates can be added to here etc I should be able to to create deriratives of existing files for this purpose for most of the Chinese provinces. I'll require coordinate assistance though. I'll see what NNW says about the Sichuan map. No rush, though, they can be made gradually.... Himalayan 19:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Grrr the damn thing was right all along. Rutog Town had the flamin wrong coordiates! The map looks perfectly OK now. Himalayan 23:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

My merge nominations

I nominated a lot of templates for merging on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 October 9. I was cleaning up a certain page. First of all, there are a few discussions that are clear "keep"s. In view of the fact that I have factually withdrawn the nomination, or even per wp:snow, I think you can close them without anybody's feelings getting hurt. On wp:cfd they also do so. Secondly, I'd like to offer my help if any merging will need to be done after the closure. I have some experience with templates, and have no problem with helping out a little. Debresser (talk) 07:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to help resolve the merger issues after the TFD's close. I find myself spending quite a bit of time dealing with such issues, and often it takes quite a bit of time. Thanks also for withdrawing the obvious keeps. As far as the obvious deletes/mergers, I tend to let them run until completion as there is usually plenty of other stuff to do. Thanks again. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your policy. Deletion is a more delicate matter, and you never know who will come up with what valid objection. So better wait out full term. Yes, you do seem a little understaffed at Tfd, so to say. Debresser (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Tfd protection

I have an edit I'd like to make to tfd. WP:Templates for deletion has been moved to WP:Templates for discussion. Debresser (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You should be able to edit it now. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Any idea about what to do with {{Tfdend}}? Will the new logs have the "discussion" prefix? It would be a pain to create redirects for all the old ones, and but nonsensical to create redirects for all the new ones. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Not yet. It is 4 AM here. Tomorrow I'll have time to think about it. Debresser (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I quickly did some work on the basic templates, but not the minor. I created some categories and changed the tree of others. I think we could leave Category:Wikipedia templates for deletion and Category:Templates for discussion apart. That is what I have done so far, but it would be easy to change that if you think otherwise. Nevertheless, on Cfd they also have them apart. BTW, perhaps move the deletion category to simply Category:Templates for deletion (which is at present a soft redirect)?A good night! Debresser (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It is finished now, with help from User:Jafeluv. I have implemented all I suggested above: keeping Category:Templates for deletion and Category:Templates for merging apart as two subcategories of Category:Templates for discussion. Analogous to Cfd. I speedied Category:Templates for deletion templates (you are welcome to take care of it), and turned Category:Wikipedia templates for deletion into a soft redirect to Category:Templates for deletion. All of this of course while changing the categories on the templates and the links. To hurry up the moves I null-edited all templates, and they are all over. In the process I removed the many noinclude tags I added previously, since they served their purpose (cleaning out 700+ of incorrect Tfd transclusions). Is there anything I forgot? Debresser (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Thank you for the warning. I will be sure to include my sources next time I edit a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.97.94 (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What and what not

It says in the Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Header "On this page, deletion of templates (except as noted below) is discussed." As a matter of fact there is no such section. Also, this sentence has become a little outdated, now that we merge as well. Debresser (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, we are considering both deletion and merging. It should probably be updated. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

RW/RR

I think that it would be good for the RW/RR fans to see some stats on some of the cast, I was planning on doing this for quite a few cast members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.224.61 (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the question is whether or not the information can be adequately covered on the individual Real World and Road Rules articles. For contestants who are only famous for that one thing, the don't need individual articles. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox russian federal subject

Hi Plastikspork,
as a registered user, I changed the Template:Infobox Russian federal subject to have it use Infobox settlement as a backend. In doing this, I replaced three other templates, all used for federal districts of Russia (Template:Infobox_Russian_federal_subject2, Template:Infobox Russian federal city and Template:Infobox Russian federal city2) fixing every instance and spending hours to fix and improve the layout. Now, half a month later, all my work was reverted by an admin (User:Ezhiki) citing a lack of discussion (after two weeks?). Now, I don't know if I should be bothering you with this at all, but frankly I feel deeply frustrated, considering that all the time I put in that template, trying to make it work properly, rewriting the documentation and all, is going to waste for no apparent reason. I hope you can help me, and sorry for my poor English.--93.45.20.113 (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. Perhaps the best thing to do at this point is to mock up something in the sandbox, and start a thread to discuss the merits of the two implementations. I would be happy to join any discussion. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

NFl

Apart from the first four parameters these templates are completely different. What do you suggest? Debresser (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It turns out that {{Infobox NFL coach}} only had one transclusion (when I got to it). So, no problem with just redirecting it and converting the single transclusion. Thanks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Working on Convert & Gconvert

19-Oct-2009: Hello, Plastikspork. Wikid77 here. I got distracted in a massive emergency at Template:Convert, where some European users had again noted that heights & weights did not match world-standard conversions (due to over-rounding). I created a general-purpose Template:Gconvert to experiment using more precise values for some measurements. However, as you can imagine, there were fears of a "rival template" that would lead to total chaos in all wiki-dom, if diversity were allowed. There are numerous rounding problems, but they can be hidden when setting the round parameter as "0" or "2" (etc.). Meanwhile, I noticed that some options had not been fully implemented, so I created 120(?) new Convert subtemplates to finish "disp=comma" and "disp=or". That brings the total to over 2,500 subtemplates, and hence the need to reduce, as explained in the next topic. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I generally use {{height}} for height conversions, and specify the precision for weights. I had been following the initial discussion about changing the default rounding rules. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Method to reduce 1600 of 2500 Convert subtemplates

19-Oct-2009: Although it will take some weeks (or months) to gain consensus, it would be possible to put simple if-logic inside some of the 1,800 various Convert output-display subtemplates, to allow deletion of the others. The simple if-logic would mean perhaps 200 subtemplates could handle the various options of the current 1,800+ output subtemplates (of over 2,500 total). I will write a wiki-essay with full details, but for now, I am experimenting with User:Wikid77/Template:Convert2 to pre-screen the option values and re-invoke fewer subtemplates (each still small) to handle many different options: no longer would there be a separate subtemplate for every possible combination of conversion options. Options would be passed into a few subtemplates that handled multiple combinations of: lk=on, abbr=on, disp=comma (etc.) plus a separator "sep=," or "sep=(" or "sep=/" and such. Because lk/abbr & disp had not been passed into the subtemplates, there had been no simple way to handle combined options in the past. This message is just a heads-up notice that reduction of 1,600 subtemplates would be fairly easy, using a bot-edit to add those parameters, and then TfD the 1,600 obsolete subtemplates. I'm sorry I don't have more time right now. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, people are generally resistant to change. This is especially true if they feel things are changing too fast. Things are compounded even further by the complexity of templates like {{convert}}. Your best bet is to move slowly and brush off any ad hominem attacks. However, it is essentially to do everything possible to gain consensus before making any changes in article space. If there is any way to do a slower change, perhaps in stages, people will be more likely to react favorably. Best of luck and let me know if there is anything in particular you would like me to read or comment on. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ref in template

Thanks for that, I had tried some time ago to get that to work and just gave up. As it happens today I translated a French article and saw that you can do substitution in URLs (which I had assumed was the problem after trying almost everything) so went back and got it to work by kinda not putting it in the ref. Some other time I will now play with {{tag}} to do that, it's exactly my aim, yes, to defer the expansion. I am translating a Hungarian article now so I will carry on with that and come back to it later.

Thanks once again SimonTrew (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I had run into a similar problem with <math> tags. Let me know if I can help. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Members parameter in Template:Infobox French political party

Hi, I didn't use {{Infobox politcal party}}'s membership parameter for that template's members, because it has different meaning there. I added it when merging {{Infobox French Political Coalition}} into it, and it isn't count of members of the party, but list of parties that are members of that coaliton. So, firstly, I'm not sure that these two diferent things should use the same parameter and, secondly, I don't think it makes sense for list of members to be under the label “Membership”, but I could be wrong at this one, as English isn't my native language. What do you think? Svick (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You are probably right. I didn't check the usage that carefully. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted templates, why?

I'd like to know why those templates has been recently deleted:

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_September_5#Template:Auto_PS

And which (new?) should I use for the replacement of them i.e. in this article…

Opel_Omega#Engines

--Shaman (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I performed the conversions in the above mentioned article. Basically, all these templates were replaced by {{convert}}. I can create a conversion guide if it would be helpful?

re:Careful

Ah yes, there was an edit conflict. I did actually copypaste my comment from the older edit window to the conflict window, as usual, so the newer edit with the other request should have been in there. Must have been a glitch. --84.44.248.66 (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Template

Thanks. How are you doing? I haven't checked to see what you are up to for over a week. Did you finish Italy? Himalayan 18:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm on the second (or third) pass through Italy. I keep thinking of new things to check. I got sidetracked with new work on {{Infobox political party}}, where there is an effort to merge all the regional political party templates and fix deprecated parameters. It looks like you have been keeping busy. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have indeed. One request. Can you add a pushpin map option to Template:Infobox Dam? Himalayan 15:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I will have a look. Right now they are using the coord template, which means the latd, longd is not being sent to the template. Depending on the number of transclusions, I can always run AWB to convert the coord templates to latd/longd, then add a pushpin map. This is what we did on the Italian comune articles. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheaters TV show

If you would prefer me to call a news station or something like that I can if you wish them to be publicated as being fake. Since the state is also open records I can just pull up the city's report of the happenings last night and hand those over too. However there is no current online refrence to something that happened LAST NIGHT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.231.23.244 (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Recentism. Is it really that important in the context of the history of the show? Thanks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Spanish infoboxes

Looking at all of the Category:Municipalities of Spain I would say we would greatly benefit from making a makeshift Spain infobox and copying infoboxes directly from Spanish wiki. Then coordinates pin maps can be added afterwards. It would seem that most municipalities have no information or infoboxes or have horrid grey infoboxes often which contain out of date data. Also we have the Catalan infoboxes currently up for TFD which I would say would be better replaced. So I think the articles could all be made consistent by overiding the grey infoboxes we currently have with a makeshift template and then use automation to replace with infobox settlement afterwards. An example would be Alegría de Álava. Using automation the infobox can be directly copied from Spanish wiki in a wrapper template, and all of the municipalities made consistent. It might be a week or two though before you have time to look at it but what do yo u think? The Spanish municipal articles are a mess!! Himalayan 21:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a mess! I am using a similar procedure to add infoboxes to all the Italian comune articles. Once I have finished that task, I will look at the Spanish municipalities. Right now the procedure is only semi-automated, in that I copy and paste the templates by hand, but my script then reformats them for English WP. I should be able to script the copy part as well, but I haven't had the time to work on cross-language WP scripting yet. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I did start with Nerha which is how I'd like them all to look eventually but I took one look at the all of the municipality articles and thought, mmm, this will take yonks manually... Most of the articles are in a mess. I would think it best to create a similar template like Italy use it to overide all of the current individual grey boxes and then use it to add infoboxes to all of the missing ones. I did add infoboxes and pin maps manually to some of the main Spanish cities anyway.. What we need is definately like you have been doing with Italy, Italy though was better of than Spain is at present! And to think a lot of the articles on resort towns and that probably get a lot of traffic from holidayers looking to read about thep places they are going to! A shambles... A lot of them look like Amurrio.... I'd say you could probably sort something out from here and get it to look like the Nerja template...Anyway major thanks for your work on Italy to date too! Himalayan 21:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Right. Formatting like Amurrio is what I am seeing on about 10 percent of the Italian pages. This isn't so bad, since it just means copying over an infobox, rather than cleaning up a big mess. Some of the Italian pages had been hijacked to point to towns in other countries, or to advertise some business. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's best. Also I would say you'd probably also be best replacing even the current infoboxes for articles like Puebla de Don Fadrique with an updated version consistent with the others you will transfer. Population is more up to date and the parameters and I would say that the ghost coat of arms images templates don't exactly help the situation.... I would ignore those personally... It is up to you though how you want to go about it, anything would be better than the present state!! Regards. Himalayan 21:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I will code up a transitional translation template, which can be used to help speed up the process. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be excellent. Again it is the consistency thing, some have no templates, some have horrid grey fat ones, others have geobox which is barely legible and those in Catalonia have infobox catalan. A mixed bag but I suspect you'll find the majority have no infoboxes at all as I know Italy was mostly done using Eubot which added infoboxes first time but bypassed the stubs already created, all of Spain was started manually with no real coordination, and the results speak for itself! I'd say then a Template:Infobox Spanish municipality would do for a temporary outlined like infbox settlement and then can be converted later. Happy editing! Himalayan 22:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I started something, but it will require some more work. The transitional version has both English and Spanish options, but the idea is to split these and create a AWB translator, but I wanted to see if all the important parameters could be remapped. I will take another look at in about 24 hours or so. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)