User talk:Primefac

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

Template:Infobox country request[edit]

Hello. It seems that you are one of the primary maintainers of the Infobox country template. I have a feature request of adding ISO 3166 three letters country code.

Could you please consider this?

Regpath (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure if "primary" describes my maintenance status for that template, but I'm rather swamped with this at the moment. If I get a chance I'll take a look, but you might be better off sandboxing your proposed changes and throwing up a {{TPER}}. Primefac (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Primefac, sorry about nominating this page for speedy deletion under the G12 rationale. I misclicked and meant to do so as G13. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, that makes a bit more sense. Thanks for the update. Primefac (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In re talk page of "arbitration evidence" diffs what about "sames"[edit]

Primafac - I made a comment on the talk page of "arbitration evidence" to make the point that a single editor (or group of editors) can dominate the content within an article or groups of articles. Additionally a group of editors can use noticeboards in tandem. The editors can be quite convinced of facts or objectives. Rather than look at "diffs" I am suggesting look at "sames."

Regardless as to whether or not the facts are true or false; The "sames" work in a way that is contrary to a fair collaborative process.

This was a finding in the European Mailing List arbitration of 2009 - the current arbitration is a redux along similar lines.

I would like to enter this type of study in evidence (add users beyond three).

I figured I would clear this possibility with you to get your feedback.

Regards Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Been away, will look soon. Primefac (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyway, I just "revisited" some of my perceptions... based on conformity with existing rules, processes, and guidelines - I personally don't see that there are grounds for an arbitration as stated. On the evidence talk page there are some interesting comments which speak to a larger issue. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mind splitting the file into File:Kokoda Track Memorial Walkway Centre Piece (1).jpg, File:Kokoda Track Memorial Walkway Centre Piece (2).jpg & File:Kokoda Track Memorial Walkway Centre Piece (3).jpg? --Minorax«¦talk¦» 12:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Been away, will look soon. Primefac (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just as a followup, the other versions have been deleted as no license was given. I have left a note for the uploader that if they want a different version they are welcome to do so at a different file name. Primefac (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrong link[edit]

In this edit you gave the intrawiki link February 2023. Even being optimistic about enthusiasm in editing Wikipedia, I suspect that the climate emergency will have been reversed (by the year 2100 or so) long before we reach that many edits in Wikipedia (the error message is misleading: the oldid is in the future rather than being a revdel'd oldid). Boud (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, pipe somehow ended up in the wrong place. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I strongly disagree with your actions taken here. It is not at all clear that including the name violates BLP and there is no consensus to that effect. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree this smells of a supervote. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough. In thinking further about the matter, it can still be discussed without the controversial content being included in the question. Please do not seek to re-add it. Primefac (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Family name footnote template?[edit]

Asking here since you created Template:Family name hatnote. Would it be feasible to create a similar template with the same functionality, but with the message formatted as a footnote (wrapped in {{efn}}) rather than as a hatnote (as in Category:Explanatory footnote name templates)? You're probably aware that there are concerns among some editors that name clarification isn't an appropriate use of hatnotes, and such a template would provide an alternative for where there is local consensus in support of using footnotes instead. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feasible, yes, and actually the way I created the hatnote template means it would likely require very little work.
My concern, and I am approaching this genuinely from a "consensus" standpoint (i.e. I have no particular thoughts on the matter), is that if this hypothetical efn template is created, then there will be wars raging over whether to place the note as a hatnote or as a footnote. I doubt it would rise to the levels of the WP:ARBINFOBOX case (or its successor) but it would probably be good to hold a centralised discussion about what to do with these hatnotes. If consensus from this discussion says "ditch 'em" then I'll convert the existing template. If it says "article by article" I'll create your proposed template. If the people say "no", then I guess I don't have to do any work :-p
Let me know if that sounds reasonable. Primefac (talk) 06:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The latest discussion I'm aware of is Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 188#Method of surname clarification from a year ago, and from what I see there very much seems to be no consensus. I don't think a new discussion is going to fare any better, though a significant minority there did suggest to allow either on a case-by-case basis and I think that seems to be the best compromise solution right now. I'd understand if you don't see it that way though, and it's okay. It can always be manually done anyway. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough. If I get some time I'll see about putting something together. Primefac (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]