User talk:Primefac: Difference between revisions

This is Primefac's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Dear Primefac

Thanks for taking the time to review my article, Industrial Plankton Inc. You wrote on June 1st "My main concern with this draft (which I have discussed with the creator on IRC) is that in five years this company has only received three press mentions, one of which being from a rather specialized publication. Apparently there should be more press generated soon, as new business ventures are underway. When that happens, I would be perfectly happy accepting this article as a stub, but until then it seems like a good idea that just hasn't been noticed yet"

I have taken the time to work on what you wrote and have published an article by the Globe and Mail titled" Feeding the seafood Farm industry" http://www.theglobeandmail.com/partners/advsbi0916/feeding-the-seafood-farm-industry/article32263942/. I believe this should satisfy you, and the Globe and Mail is one the most reliable sources here in Canada. I am working on getting more sources, as I believe this company is attending a lot of huge Aquaculture and Biotech Conferences and seminars and I honestly see a huge potential for such a company. Kindly read the most recent article. I have just resubmitted the article and I hope you can approve it.

Thank you for your cooperation.

) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Am.h121 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am.h121, in looking at the Glove and Mail reference, it's created by Globe Edge Content Studio, which is a service where a company pays them money and they write/help write an article that can be published somewhere. I'm not quite sure it counts as a good secondary source (since it's essentially a press release/native advertising). Keep looking, though, and I'm always happy to provide feedback! Primefac (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you added several parameter names to {{Infobox station/sandbox}}. Instead of adding the parameter names, it might be better to turn the being-deleted box into a wrapper of {{Infobox station}} and then substitute its uses. (I think I was going to substitute this a while ago but couldn't get around to replacing the previous/next fields with {{S-line}}.) Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 03:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jc86035, that's what I'm doing. There are too many exceptions to the rules I made in the /sandbox, so I'm subst'ing and checking them manually rather than substituting everything and then cleaning up one hell of a mess. Primefac (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Never mind then. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 04:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have not finished yet, could you please modify your script/template/process to combine the old |street= and |suburb= parameters into the new |address= instead of just using the street and leaving the reader to guess which suburb/town it is in (they do not always correspond to the station names). Thank you. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ScottDavis, |suburb= is not a valid parameter in {{Infobox TransAdelaide station}}, so I'm not surprised it got overlooked when I performed the merger/replacement. I will go back through my edits and revive anything that might have been skipped over in the conversion. Primefac (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if I used an abrupt tone. I only looked at the diff, not the fact that the suburb was not displayed in the pre-change infobox either. Thanks for doing the infobox change, as it did not look easy. I added suburbs to the new boxes for the northern part of the Gawler line. Cheers. --Scott Davis ^Talk 21:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, Scott, you're cool. I was mostly explaining why I hadn't moved that information over. Thanks for letting me know; everything should be as close to original as possible. Primefac (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw that you removed two parameters from the {{

Lordtobi, thanks for the heads up. Thought I got everything. Primefac (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

No problem! For clean-up purposes, would you mind removing | Predecessor as well? It is the only left-over from the capitalized parameters removal long ago (apart from ISIN).

✉) 15:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Lordtobi, I've removed it from the Template Data (so "Predecessor" doesn't actually appear in the documentation anywhere). I'm hesitant to just remove it from the actual template, though, because there might be an article or two still using it. If you're really concerned, I can set up a tracking category, but for 16 characters of code it hardly seems worth it. Let me know, though. Primefac (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

That would be of my interest, I always like cleannes on everything, so if you could set that up, hunt them down, and then remove it in its entirety, that would be nice.

✉) 22:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

 Done Primefac (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Do you know if there is a script to automaticly clean infoboxes (or other templates) from outdated parameters, etc.? I also wonder why the visual editor sorts the parameter the way it does, out of the normal ordering.

✉) 22:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I do not know of any script that would do that, mostly because there isn't really a good way to define an "outdated" parameter. There are many times where I've added/subtracted a param in the template itself and forgotten/missed its counterpart in the /doc, so any sort of "match" between the two wouldn't always be correct (also, there are numerous times where the /doc doesn't list every param). So... even if there were such a script, I'm not sure how much use it would be. The tracking categories are really the best way to keep on top of these sorts of things.

No idea about VE, I prefer just editing the code so I haven't used it in a couple of years. Primefac (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you made some edits to the Convergent Design page that I am trying to get accepted as a Wikipedia article. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. Any other tips you may have for the page would be gratefully accepted.

I don't know if you attended the Wikipedia Conference 2016 in San Diego over this past weekend, but it got me excited about this and other future articles. A great venue to meet fellow Wikipedians and a no-brainer for me to attend because I live in San Diego.

--Patty Mooney (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pattymooney, sorry for the delay in replying. I only took a super-quick look at your references, but they look decent and the draft isn't terribly promotional. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Tpetpe (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Søren Sørensen (microbiologist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Primefac.

Many thanks for taking the time to look at the submission for the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Søren_Sørensen_(microbiologist). I have tried to address the comments made. I am a little concerned that it is getting rather long and includes too many references (N.B watch out for the Danish character "ø", it can cause problems in links and searching documents especially if replaced with "o").

This is not so much a request for a re-review, but a question as to if scientific notability is sufficient to merit an article submission.

It is difficult citing why the work is notable without using PRIMARY references, as the area of work has been contributed considerably by the person concerned. I have left some of the PRIMARY references in as they are representative of the work and at least of high scientific impact. Also the area of microbial interactions is based on very recent research, so is not well reported outside of the scientific community in which the researcher is very much central making it difficult to exclude him from the references.

You mention that "As a note, h indices do not automatically demonstrate notability". I understand that h factor is of course only intended to represent scientific impact. The h factor of 50 is especially high for microbiology which I think justifies scientific notability.

But does this mean that scientific notability should not contribute to general notability as required for submission criteria? In which case including high impact scientific publications (as these are the main changes made) would not contribute to notability? Currently there are about 10 primary references and about 15 that are from the scientific press (Such as Nature).

Microbial interactions in evolutionary and socio- biology are innately theoretical and tend not to get too much popular press, so excluding scientific publications would certainly make the article invalid and so shouldn't be resubmitted.

Would it then be better then not to resubmit if scientific notability does not contribute to general notability.

Many thanks

Tim

WP:PROF, and why independent reliable sources

are so important; they give us a metric to show that someone has become noticed and are doing valuable works.

I see that you have already resubmitted the draft, but you are welcome to continue working on and improving it while it is waiting for review. Good luck, and if I haven't fully explained something (or you'd like to ask more questions) please don't hesitate. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

something odd has happened - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgrave_railway_line is the first one I checked.

I tried reverting your addition - still there - so I reverted my edit and looked at others - they have:

REDIRECT Template:Infobox rail line

From a merge: This is a redirect from a page that was merged into another page. This redirect was kept in order to preserve this page's edit history after its content was merged into the target page's content. Please do not remove the tag that generates this text (unless the need to recreate content on this page has been demonstrated) nor delete this page. For redirects with substantive page histories that did not result from page merges use

instead.

Never met that beast before, I think there is a need to do something, I am not sure what - hope you can - cheers JarrahTree 14:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VictorianRailwayLineInfobox}} was already redirecting to IB Victorian, and Wikipedia doesn't like double redirects. I forgot about that issue (and normally a bot comes along fairly quick and fixes it), but I've gone ahead and redirected to the proper location. It should be showing up properly in the next hour or so (if not, just purge your cache). Thanks for the heads up! Primefac (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for explaining - no big deal and do not apologise if you sort it out - there was a group of lines you had edited that I thought were relating to the current puffing billy and hoped you caught your set of edits; as I imagine a non editor - reader would probably have total lack of understanding why the messages are there or what they meant  :) JarrahTree 15:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your correction re: the template listing. My agenda was solely to revert the most recent sock from the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Dog and rapper vandal farm. Every once in a while they make a reasonable edit--accidents will happen. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just noticed this. Are you sure {{lang-zh}} was meant to be deleted? I'm not sure I remember seeing that in the discussion. Is there something I'm missing? – Uanfala (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When two items are merged, they become one. The old template isn't needed if the new one can do the job of both. Primefac (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's generally true, but I don't remember the discussion ending in a consensus to delete, rather than redirect. Have I missed that somewhere? – Uanfala (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the consensus was to merge. You haven't missed anything. Primefac (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it is a good idea to edit archives marked as "This is an archive of past discussions for the period up to 2010. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page."? You might want to reconsider Talk:Judas Iscariot/Archive 1. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

X}}" then I would just comment it out. Primefac (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Your substituting kjv in articles didn't work. The articles with problems I've found are:

Subst does not work inside ref tags, etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, I know. Bgwhite, Magioladitis, thank you for the note. I remembered the subst/ref issue and went back through all of my edits but clearly I missed a few. I guess I'll take another pass.... Primefac (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot request has been approved for trial. I've added non-automated access to the bot account for AWB for your testing. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Primefac. I saw your question this morning. Yes, I have a few AWB bot tasks in the pipeline. Why do you ask? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13, had a question but I've since gotten it sorted. Primefac (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I added refs and tried to accept the Selves We Cannot Forgive article last night, but couldn't figure out how to get rid of the redirect to make way for the article. I thought about just removing the #redirect and copying the text from the draft, but I didn't know if it could be done while preserving the history. How did you do it? I'm sure I'll encounter it again! (Digging back into AfC - I've been focusing on other areas - I hadn't realized that the backlog had gotten so out of control again.) Thanks, Julie JSFarman (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JSFarman, you have to get the page deleted. I use {{db-move}} for draft acceptances, though a standard {{db-g6}} will also work provided you give the rationale in the edit summary. If you can't remember the codes, Twinkle also has the G6 options listed. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, of course. I should have thought of that! Thank you!JSFarman (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. When the bot flag is set it will show up in this log. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Primefac

Apologies for removing the header in my article a couple of times. I wasn’t aware that these were being reinstated, as I couldn’t see the comments surrounding these actions on the Talk Page (I think because the page was redirected) and was unaware of the situation. Similarly I appear to have lost my connection to NickD’s Talk Page in the military zone, so I’m a bit at sea here.

What I was actually going on for notability was WP:ANYBIO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography rather than strictly military guidelines, as the Easter Rising was an extraordinary situation. While the histories of the major figures are well documented, with the centenary of the event, people here in Ireland are interested in the more personal stories of the participants in the Rising. I am very disappointed to have missed the writing contest on Wikipedia, which ended last month: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland/WLM_Ireland_2016_Writing_Contest , as I believe that the Patrick Whelan, Irish Volunteer article would have been of interest in the category People and Places of 1916.

Where I believe that Patrick Whelan meets the notability guidelines in WP:ANYBIO are as follows:

1) The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor – Patrick Whelan received the 1916 Medal posthumously.

2) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field - The Easter Rising only lasted 6 days, but it is a seminal event in Irish history. Patrick played his part in this significant military event and gave his life for his country. As one of the Volunteers, he is honoured at State events and annual State Masses in recognition of his sacrifice to help build the foundation of the Irish State. His name was included as part of the logo for the centenary events this year.

3) The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication - This refers to the UK only, but Patrick Whelan is listed in 'Who's Who in the Dublin Rising 1916' by Joseph E.A. Connell Jnr. His story is also documented in Ray Bateson’s ‘They Died by Pearse’s Side’, with Patrick mentioned specifically on the back cover.

As well as being documented in the Military Archives, Patrick Whelan also has a building named after him – Whelan House, which is located beside O’Rahily House in Ringsend, Dublin. O'Rahily was a leading figure of the Rising. Both buildings were named in recognition of the men’s part in The Easter Rising of 1916. https://www.google.ie/search?q=whelan+house+ringsend&espv=2&biw=1440&bih=755&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOyYqP5YfPAhUMCMAKHSeoBF0Q_AUIBygC&dpr=1#imgrc=Oq6Ll_FST9IOuM%3A

Could you please reconsider my article in light of these facts Primefac?

Thanks and kind regards

Helen Larkin (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, Helen Larkin, my opinion hasn't changed much. Here's my reasoning.

1. The 1916 Medal was given to just about anyone who participated in the Easter Rising. It is (to be somewhat simplistic) equivalent to a participation trophy.
2. I'm genuinely curious about what part he played. From every account I've read, he got shot almost before anything started. This goes back to point #1, where the simple fact that he was present does not make him notable. We are not a directory.
3. Again, simply being in a directory of people who fought in the East Rising does not make them notable. This would be like going to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in the USA and claiming that every person listed on the wall should have an article.

I was actually going to concede that I may have been a bit harsh when I suggested that the streets and buildings were named willy-nilly, but this article basically confirms that notion (the names were simply given out because the person was a local and died in the Rising).

This all goes back to my original point - there simply isn't enough in-depth coverage about Whelan (or his greater contribution to society) than "he was in the Rising and he got shot". When I can summarize a person's entire notability in one line, I have a hard time believing they should have an article on Wikipedia.

On a note regarding your first few paragraphs - I'm not entirely sure what you're asking for, but Nick-D's talk page is

WP:MILHIST. Primefac (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Both myself and another Irish editor have done some more work on the article since you last looked at it. If we submit it again, I do hope that you will give it a fair chance rather than imposing rather strange and unsuitable barriers for entry. Smirkybec (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. It was a touchscreen error. I touch, the screen refreshes and takes my touch as a click in whatever is now in that location, in too many cases that's a rollback. And then the cancel option on the pop-up gets ignored... And then you beat me to fixing it. Aargh!!! Thanks. Cabayi (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Cabayi. Thanks for the note. Primefac (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Primefac, non-admins don't have authorization to close FFD discussions as delete. It isn't like TfD. Even if I agree with you, which I do, please leave that to admins unless there is a RfC authorizing it for non-admins. I would have closed a lot of them myself that way if I could have. --Majora (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Majora, will do. I was asked by an admin (off-wiki) if I would be interested in reviewing at FFD. I took that to mean I could NAC the same as TFD. I probably should have asked for more info; my apologies for breaking the rules. Primefac (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I was thinking about starting a RfC on the matter since the backlog there has gotten to the "this is ridiculous" point. The problem with FFD is that it involves copyright issues as well. We could have 10+ people all voting keep and the image would still be deleted because it is a violation of one of our copyright policies. I've slowly been working through the old ones and closing them as keep or relicense when I see ones that I can. It is just the delete ones we don't have authorization to do. --Majora (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your task #2 has been approved. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• NicePaul (talk · contribs)
  • User:NicePaul/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. Thank you for pointing at the issues with the article. I'm a newbie and not all of the rules are clear to me. But I try to learn.
I'd like to know how strict the conditions for complicated server-side software are? As millions of people use it every day, but don't know about it. Just one of the examples: http://www.myvideo.ge/

NicePaul (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The template is unused, so I see no reason why it can't be deleted. Frietjes (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am re-opening the discussion. Feel free to comment if you want to have an orphaned/duplicate template kept. Frietjes (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frietjes, no offense, but did you not read my close? {{Infobox Asian Games Ceylon}} is a hardcoded instance of {{Infobox Country Asian Games}}, which means once I finish merging it into {{Infobox country at games}} Ceylon will be deleted at G8. Thus, your nomination is redundant. Primefac (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so why don't you delete it right now. it's unused and duplicates {{Infobox Asian Games Sri Lanka}}. the ultimate decision is not "keep" which is how you closed it. Frietjes (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it. I have to clear out {{Infobox Country Asian Games}} first so that the pages dependent on both templates don't get screwed up. Primefac (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And technically, I did not close it as keep; I just closed it. Primefac (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 74.113.162.226 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Michael Ventura (Entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, would you please help me understand, specifically, what about the sources are not significant? There are multiple articles from the New York Times citing Mr. Ventura as an entrepreneur, WIRED, Mashable and others. He also founded a company which already has an active Wikipedia page. Any specific help you can give would be much appreciated!

Thank you.

This may be (definitely is?) a bit pedantic, but {{

• I've declined {{Bien de Interés Cultural}} as well for the unrelated reason that it still has existing transclusions; it appears a bot went back and "rescued" references where they had been used twice in the same page. Please double check that you're removing all instances of that ref tag when you fix the few remaining transclusions and then nominate again. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh damn, and this is the one time I decided to make myself useful by clearing out the holding cell! Sorry Rob. You are much nicer than me; I just nuked these. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um... okay! Rob, I will definitely be sure to double-check if I'm orphaning something used in references in the future; I shouldn't have missed those Cultural refs that were hiding. As for the "Country games" templates, I had every intention of just G8ing them as dependent on a template that didn't exist any more. I guess Opabinia regalis saved us both a bit of work! As there are another five such templates at TFD at the moment, I will add in a note regarding the "dependent on these templates" templates so they can be taken care of all at the same time. Primefac (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, G8'ing a hundred pages would be a waste... a couple lines of python will fix that! Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't AWB rules - I simply went too deep into the category tree when generating a list of redlinks to create. I try to exclude things like that, but apparently was firing blanks that day. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]