Userbox- Doubt

Hello there!

I had a doubt- In my User page @VSOian- may i add some of my "Notable" family members who have Wikipedia Pages on them? As a Family tree or as Infoboxes? Please let me know.

Thank you sooo very much! VSOian (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

If you have relatives who have articles on Wikipedia, you are welcome to link them on your userpage. The infobox does not have a specific parameter for this but there are custom fields that could be used if you wanted to include that information in the infobox. Primefac (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Before you decide to add any additional personal information about yourself or others, I suggest that you may want to read:

• Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world
• Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion

I hope this helps. - jc37 11:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jc37and @Primefac Thank you so much! I would surely read the articles. VSOian (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Asian Winter Games

Hi,

Would you be able to get the Infobox country at games template to show the "2025 Asian Winter Games". Also for Saudi Arabia, Bhutan and Cambodia to have 1986-2017 in grey? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC) Tyia!

Sure thing. Primefac (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Query

Hello, Primefac,

I saw your edit to VidunOriginalezLK's User page and was wondering what they meant that their previous account had been "suppressed". Do you think they are evading a block? I thought edits were suppressed, not accounts so I was unsure what was meant. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

If you look at their user page logs there are suppressed edits there. I suspect they meant "my userpage" was suppressed not "my account". Primefac (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense. They are a new editor. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom block question?

Hi Primefac, quick question: In taking over this block was ArbCom doing this sua sponte, or was there a request somewhere? Just curious to track the procedural history of this as it develops given my early tangential involvement warning the user and my comments on their SPI.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom was not doing this sua sponte. Primefac (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Template:IPA-all

Hi. Could you copy the deleted coding from this template so I don't need to recreate it until the links at IPA-xx have been fixed? That's going to take a while, as there are 800 transclusions and someone replaced them all with fake ISO codes. I've copied the generic IPA template onto IPA-xx, but it causes errors in some articles. — kwami (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Could you clarify what needs doing? {{IPA-all}} has no transclusions (otherwise it wouldn't have been deleted). Primefac (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

For its rd IPA-xx, which has about 800 transclusions. I restored those when they were fixed incorrectly [e.g. claiming that English, Hebrew, Portuguese and Russian are unknown languages]. An IP recently fixed a dozen or so of them, but it will be a while before we can delete the template. — kwami (talk) 08:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Would it make more sense to restore the original template and convert {{IPA-xx}} back into a redirect so that things can be sorted out (re-deleting when completed of course)? (also, apologies for not realising -xx was actually a template, it was never linked and I thought you just meant generic -lang templates) Primefac (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

-all is an actual ISO code, so IMO it would be best to place the code at IPA-xx, as -xx doesn't mean anything in ISO. Or we could use {IPA|xxx}, with 'xxx' our in-house code for 'code to be determined', and use the cat it generates to track the articles that have yet to be fixed. — kwami (talk) 09:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

None of the above should have happened. Using {{IPA|und}} places the page in Category:Pages with undetermined IPA, which as the category states is for contain IPA transcriptions of undetermined language and to Please replace the code [und] with the ISO code of the language transcribed. This isn't a fake ISO code. All of the above "fixes" should be reverted. Gonnym (talk) 09:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

They have been, but meanwhile the template doesn't support the params as it once did. — kwami (talk) 09:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

What parameters does {{IPA}} not support that {{IPA-all}} did? Gonnym (talk) 09:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Probably none. But I tried copying the code from {IPA}, and it generated a bunch of errors. — kwami (talk) 09:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

And by "fixes" I mean, replacing with {{IPA-xx}} which is not only worse than what was before, but also against the TfD which deleted it. Was there a deletion review to restore it? If so, please link it. Gonnym (talk) 09:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

In order for IPA-xx to be deleted, the articles transcluding it need to be fixed. They never were. Once they are, it should of course be deleted. Meanwhile, a deprecated template is far better than incorrect information. I mean, we could define all languages as English, and that would certainly make maintenance easier, but I don't think it would be appropriate if we hope to be taken seriously. Similarly, claiming that English is not an identifiable language is also hard to take seriously. — kwami (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

ISO 639-3#Special_codes defines und as (undetermined) is intended for cases where the language in the data has not been identified, such as when it is mislabeled or never had been labeled. It is not intended for cases such as Trojan where an unattested language has been given a name. which is exactly what these are. Gonnym (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

What are 'these'? I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing. — kwami (talk) 09:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

"These" are usages of IPA-xx. I'm not sure in how many more ways I need to say that what you did is incorrect, unhelpful, worse than what was previous, against policy, and should be reverted by you. Is this clearer now? Gonnym (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

So you want me to claim that English, Russian, Hebrew, Pawnee, Portuguese etc. etc. are unidentifiable as languages, and need to be coded as [und] because we can't determine which ISO code would be correct for them, assuming any are.

No, that would not be an improvement. [und] means that it cannot be determined which ISO code, if any, would be appropriate for a text. It doesn't mean 'I can't be bothered to look up the ISO code.'

If we can identify the language, we need to use the ISO code for that language. [Or [mis] or maybe the family code if the language hasn't been assigned one.] If we can't identify the language, I have to wonder why we added the text to the article. — kwami (talk) 09:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I got IPA-xx working good enough, I think. We'll probably get the articles converted to proper ISO within the year, and meanwhile it doesn't really matter if it says 'local' instead of 'locally' etc. — kwami (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, apologies, I'm not as heavily involved in this as yall are, so I'm a bit lost as to how we got here. From my read of things, there were a bunch of transclusions of {{IPA-xx}} (a redirect at the time to {{IPA-all}}) which were at one point converted to {{IPA}} per the TFD. Then, someone thought there were issues and reverted all of those changes, but by that point -all (and thus, -xx) were deleted, so -xx was recreated as a stopgap. Does that about sum up where we sit? Primefac (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that sums it up.

I switched them back because we were claiming that the language of a text could not be determined even in the article on the language of the text.

This happened because IPA-xx was used for all languages that did not have dedicated IPA help pages. Nearly all of them had ISO codes, the code simply wasn't used. Then when it was decided to delete IPA-xx, the transclusions were taken care of by mass-converting them to [und], which was incorrect. It will take a while to work though them all, though most are straightforward -- probably half are in the article for the language, and a number of others have a 'lang' param that identifies the language. There are relatively few -- I'd guess maybe 10% -- where the language isn't immediately obvious. It's just a matter of going through the bother of looking up the ISO code for 800 or so transclusions, or rather the half of them that don't have a language info box sitting right there to provide the ISO code — kwami (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

And for context, this was Kwami's response when I asked for sources for the claim that it was incorrect. Nardog (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Disney articles of NA-importance categories

Hi Primefac. My understanding is that {{WPBannerMeta}} uses parser functions to detect whether various categories exist and that if the categories are deleted, the template will automatically repopulate the articles into the new correct categories. Pinging HouseBlaster to confirm. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

That is largely correct. Module:WikiProject banner is the actual module responsible for these things, and it uses the Lua version of {{#ifexist}} to populate categories. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

So if the category is deleted the pages will automatically (following cache purge of course) be dropped from those cats? That is functionality that I did not know existed. Primefac (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Correct. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Huh. Primefac (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:Infobox political party

Dear Primefac,

I’m sorry to bug you, but do you know when the edits to Template:Infobox political party will be put back in? (If you need help, I can try fixing what was going on.)

Thanks! RiverMan18 (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to sandbox things, haven't really had a chance to work on it, been focusing on IRL stuff lately. Primefac (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok—thanks! I’ll let you know if I can fix it. RiverMan18 (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I’m not really sure what the issue is—I’ve played around with it in my sandbox and I can’t find the problem.

If you want to change the template, here’s how to do it:

1. Replace the |above section with the following wikitext:
   | above = <div style="padding-top:0.3em; padding-bottom:0.3em; {{#if:{{{colorcode|}}}|{{#if:{{{background|}}}|background:{{{colorcode}}}; color:{{{textcolorcode|}}}; margin-top:2px; margin-bottom:2px|border-top:2px solid {{{colorcode}}}; border-bottom:2px solid{{{colorcode}}};}};}} line-height: 1;"><div class="fn org">{{if empty|{{{name|}}}|{{PAGENAMEBASE}}}}</div> {{#if:{{{native_name|}}} |<div style="font-size: 0.8em; padding-top:0.3em;" class="nickname" {{#if:{{{native_name_lang|}}}|lang="{{{native_name_lang}}}"}}>{{{native_name}}}</div>}}</div>
2. Add textcolorcode and background to the parameter list at the end of the template.

Please let me know if something pops up so I can try to fix it.

Thanks! RiverMan18 (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually, wait—don’t put it in yet. I might have an idea for a better version of the template. RiverMan18 (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, here it is:

Please replace the |abovestyle and |above sections with this:

| abovestyle = font-size: 125%; {{#if:{{{background|}}}|background:{{{colorcode}}}; color:{{{textcolorcode|}}};|}}
| above = <div style="padding-top:0.3em; padding-bottom:0.3em; {{#if:{{{colorcode|}}}|border-top:2px solid {{{colorcode}}}; border-bottom:2px solid{{{colorcode}}};}} line-height: 1;"><div class="fn org">{{if empty|{{{name|}}}|{{PAGENAMEBASE}}}}</div> {{#if:{{{native_name|}}} |<div style="font-size: 0.8em; padding-top:0.3em;" class="nickname" {{#if:{{{native_name_lang|}}}|lang="{{{native_name_lang}}}"}}>{{{native_name}}}</div>}}</div>

Please also add the “background” and “textcolorcode” parameters to the parameter list so that the pages where they are enabled do not show up on the “pages with bad parameters list” for the template.

I’m sorry for all the confusion. RiverMan18 (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

User rights

Hi there @Primefac, can I still request user rights (Page Mover and New Page Patroller) even though I'm partially blocked? 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 02:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

You would have to make a fairly compelling argument for why your sanctions are unrelated to the permissions you are asking about, but you probably can still apply. I would mostly ask yourself whether it is really a route you wish to pursue. Primefac (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Great to know that I still can and yes in a couple of years I will pursue those two user rights I mentioned above. Thank you. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 09:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).

Administrator changes

• Arcticocean
• Wugapodes

Euryalus

CheckUser changes

• Firefly
• L235

Oversighter changes

• Firefly
• Guerillero
• L235
• Moneytrees

Technical news

• Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
• A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been closed.

UTP

Re:

Maybe you'd see it more often if it were mentioned in places like that. I use it all the time because:

• It's concise. I don't use two or three words when one will convey the same meaning.
• It's precise and clear. There is no way it can be misread or misinterpreted.

I've yet to have an editor say, "UTP? What's that?" I guess they've been able to figure it out in context. It's also listed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia abbreviations#U.

I also use "ATP", for the same reasons. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I cannot find fault in your argument that if it were used more, it would be seen more, but putting it on that page somewhat places the cart before the horse from my perspective. I have no issue discussing the matter further on the guideline's talk page to get a broader feedback. Primefac (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Just because one of us doesn't think it's confusing, doesn't mean it isn't, per WP:ARGH!. I think it is better as a redirect, than as a (potentially confusing) example. Noting also that WP:ATP doesn't point to "article talk page", but I'll admit that finding out the actual target made me chuckle : ) - jc37 20:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	A barnstar for you!
	As an admin, you are truly doing a great job. That’s why it is my duty to appreciate your work. Besides that, every editor should be appreciated who wants to make Wikimedia even more beautiful. Baqi:) (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorting out the Railway accidents templates

Hello there, I noticed you sorted out the 1950s railway accident templates, which looks neat. If you have a chance to sort out the remaining history merges, that would be great. I've just checked and the situation is as follows: all templates from {{Railway accidents and incidents in 1979}} to {{Railway accidents and incidents in 2021}} inclusive require a history merge with their corresponding predecessors {{1979 railway accidents}} etc. Thank you. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Been working through them slowly when I have time and interest; I do plan on working on a few more decades until they get too unwieldy. Primefac (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I was going to change the format of the existing decade templates too, adopting the current list format used for year templates (based on the {{vad}} template, and using the article's title as link text instead of generic place and date), in case you feel like implementing such format in any new decade template. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

If that's the way you're going to go, then I'll step back; I dislike that arrangement and think it is not well-suited towards a full decade worth of entries, but I know that's just my personal opinion. Primefac (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I haven't managed to get the new entries layout (with the {{vad}} template) to work acceptably with the decades template, so I think I'll leave the decades templates as they are for now. However, I'm going to move them and change the template header format from "XXXXs railway accidents" to "Railway accidents and incidents in the XXXXs", for consistency with the rest of the new templates. Furthermore:

• I propose we leave the split between decades and years templates as it is, i.e. decades templates up to the 1950s and years templates afterwards, for now.
• From the last discussion on the topic, the preferred (and more meaningful) way of linking to articles is to use, as link text, the article title, not the location where the accident happened (as it's still the case for the decades templates). This should ultimately be adopted for the decades templates too.
• The year templates from 1979 to 2021 still require a history merge, as mentioned above. I'd be happy to do it but I think I lack the required admin privileges.

-- Deeday-UK (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Just noting that I have finished the histmerges. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Advice, please?

I e-mailed you today about a sensitive situation, which has since escalated. Any advice you could offer would be very much appreciated. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I replied to your email approximately an hour ago. Please check your spam folder, but if it did not show up I will re-send when I get home later tonight. Primefac (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Paid editing

Hello 🙏

suppose, I have concerns about an editor who writes Wikipedia articles and may be receiving payment for their contributions.

If such an editor applies for AFC reviewer rights and is granted the permission despite having poor AfD (Articles for Deletion) statistics—primarily because they attempt to protect their own articles at any cost.

I am particularly concerned that if such editor creates new articles using a different account or IP address and then approve them using their AFC reviewer rights. This could lead to conflicts of interest and a compromise in content quality and misuse of permission.

In such a scenario, what measures are in place to monitor such activities? Additionally, how can other editors report potential misuse of AFC reviewer permissions? Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

If you have demonstrable evidence about UPE, you should report it. If there is no private evidence, please file at the appropriate noticeboard (and if there is logged-out editing, file at SPI). If there is private evidence, please email me or paid-enwikimedia.org so that I can evaluate it. Primefac (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for detailed information. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Can this be unprotected?

Hello, can you unprotect the redirect Template:Film name please? It has only 13 transclusions, so Template Editor or any protection is unnecessary considering the very low transclusion count. Srf123 (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Why do you need the redirect unprotected? The protection level of redirects should generally match the protection level of the target template. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I saw this redirect while doing other edits. I don't need to edit it right now, but I thought general wiki practice is to keep as many pages open to as many editors as possible? There are lots of low use template redirects which do not have the same protection level as target template. Srf123 (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I just read Wikipedia:Protection policy, it doesn't say that template redirects should match the protection level of it's target. Srf123 (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

You're awfully insistent on dropping the protection of a page you say you don't actually want to edit, and likely does not need to be edited. Primefac (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Not needing to be edited isn't really a justification for protecting a low use redirect right? I would have submitted an edit request if I wanted some change. Anyway I came here because Twinkle suggested it, won't bother you further. Srf123 (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

No, I suppose it doesn't, I am just extremely twitchy when it comes to out-of-the-blue requests to drop protection on out-of-the-way redirects to templates; that's how you get seriously vandalised. Primefac (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Please verify that you are human in my talk page.

Before editing my homepage, you need to verify that you are human first. Swede the Great I (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

While some measure of silliness is welcomed on Wikipedia, please make sure that you are always keeping the main goal -- Improving Wikipedia -- in mind. As I said on your talk page, bots are indicated as such, so there is no need to ask every user if they are a bot. Primefac (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

* are commonly used in sports reporting stats

The use of the "*" is commonly used in reporting sports stats to denote a result that is controversial for one reason or another. This allows the result to stand, but informs readers there is further discussion in the sports community surrounding the result or want to suppress the controversy. In either case that controversy does not go away. By removing the "*" you demonstrate you are ignorant of the controversy surrounding the result. You're partially blocking me does not make the noted controversy go away. In fact the former team mates have recently filed suit in US court against U Penn concerning the very issue you are actively trying to suppress. I will be appealing the partial block on the grounds you are targeting me unjustly for mearly adding additional context to a sports stat that is in fact controversial. Good day to you. AbelVannay (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

You are welcome to put in an edit request to have the content re-added along with a well-sourced statement that can be added. Of course, one should note that her status as a transgender individual has already been established further up the page. By all means appeal your block, indefinite does not mean infinite. Primefac (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

IPA-xx

Please fix the 138 links to the 'unused' IPA-xx template you just deleted so that they both display the IPA and generate the ISO error category. There are 140 articles that need an ISO code, and only 2 of them now display in the error-tracking category, and those 2 don't display the IPA. — kwami (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Never mind. I fixed it.

This template should be deleted -- just as soon as the articles linking to it have actually been fixed, i.e. by someone who knows what they're doing. [That dig isn't aimed at you, but at the editor who keeps adding the wrong ISO codes because they can't be bothered to do it correctly.] — kwami (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I will wait (again) for the transclusion count to hit zero. Apologies for the hassle, every time I looked it wasn't transcluded so I assumed the task was complete. Primefac (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

No problem. We've cleared out 80% from the first time, and many of the remaining are pretty obvious, so hopefully it won't be very long — kwami (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

​ Transclusion count shows zero again; is this finally sorted? Primefac (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

No, there's still 105 articles. User Gonnym gave them all wrong ISO codes again. That after people at wikiproject languages told them it was the wrong code, and that repeating someone else's error was not a valid reason for doing it purposefully.

Someone objected to the 'fix' tag that IPA-xx now uses, bu they can change that if they want. — kwami (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, all cleaned up. For the last one I just deleted the IPA; it appeared to be wrong anyway. — kwami (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the update and the work on this. Primefac (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

AFC helper script request

Hi Primefac, could you please review my request on WT:AFC/Participants if you have the time to. It's been around 2 days since I requested TNM101 (chat) 03:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I only do AFCP reviews once a week, so please be patient. Primefac (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok sure no problem! TNM101 (chat) 15:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey Primefac. Just a question about AfC, if drafts have been declined multiple times and have been resubmitted without improvement, is it possible to just reject them? In my first ever draft that obviously wasn't notable, some other editor came to the draft and submitted it for no reason. There, DoubleGrazing mentioned Resubmitted without any improvement, previous decline still stands. Fair warning: next time I will reject this outright, if evidence of notability is not provided. I was wondering if doing this was allowed TNM101 (chat) 16:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

If the submitter is not showing any serious interest in improving the draft, specifically by resubmitting without making improvements, then rejection is not entirely unreasonable. Given that this was what appears to be a drive-by IP resubmitting without making any changes, I would probably recommend that DoubleGrazing reconsider the decline; outright removal of the last AFC template is probably reasonable here given that it is there only edit in the last two years. Primefac (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Wouldn't it be better if this was mentioned at Reviewing instructions#Rejecting submissions, so that new reviewers would also know TNM101 (chat) 17:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Might be worth discussing. Primefac (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, why do I need to reconsider the decline? All I was saying was that nothing had changed since the previous decline, ergo that decline was still valid. Which it was.

Or if it's my "fair warning" comment that is being objected to, then I'd be happy to strike that, alas I cannot. Besides, that comment was just pointing out that tendentious resubmissions (whether by drive-by IPs or anyone else) aren't a good idea as they will eventually cause the draft to be rejected outright. Which is true. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking that since it was a drive-by resubmission clearly not intended as a serious resubmission, just removing it outright would be reasonable. I'm not saying you have to do that, just saying that's what I'd do, and that as the reviewer you'd be the one to ask if that was a reasonable thing for you to consider. "Start the discussion" etc. Primefac (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ali Niknam

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ali Niknam. 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. Spokeoino (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Just noting for whatever record is necessary that I restored the page and closed the DRV; page was reverse-copied. Primefac (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Question

I am a probationary member of AFC. I have done some reviewing work but would like to withdraw the request. (Usually you would use  Request withdrawn but I am not on the apply page at the moment, but am on the "probationary members" section of the participants page. Thanks! Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 14:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know. Primefac (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Do I have to do anything on my side? _{nice quick reply, by the way!} Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 14:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, I have removed you from the AFCH access list and there really isn't anything else to do (unless you have userboxes or similar that say you're a Helper). Primefac (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thanks so much! Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 15:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2025).

Administrator changes

• Jarry1250
• Lethe

CheckUser changes

• AmandaNP
• Drmies

Oversighter changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open to discuss whether AI-generated images (meaning those wholly created by generative AI, not human-created images modified with AI tools) should be banned from use in articles.
• A series of 22 mini-RFCs that double-checked consensus on some aspects and improved certain parts of the administrator elections process has been closed (see the summary of the changes).
• A request for comment is open to gain consensus on whether future administrator elections should be held.

Technical news

• A new filter has been added to the Special:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below. T378488
• Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the Special:Nuke tool. T376378

Miscellaneous

• The 2025 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, Arcticocean, Ameisenigel, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, Galahad, Nehaoua, Renvoy, Revi C., RoySmith, Teles and Zafer as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
• Following the 2025 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: 1234qwer1234qwer4, AramilFeraxa, Daniuu, KonstantinaG07, MdsShakil and XXBlackburnXx.

Sarah Rafferty

Hi Primefac. Thanks for that. My apologies for not noticing everything the first time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

All good, I could say the same thing when I went to deal with it. Primefac (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of a group of Wikipedians to better understand their experiences! We are also looking to interview some survey respondents in more detail, and you will be eligible to receive a thank-you gift for the completion of an interview. The outcomes of this research will shape future work designed to improve on-wiki experiences.

We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this survey, which shouldn’t take more than 2-3 minutes. You may view its privacy statement here. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards, Sam Walton (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Withdrawal from WikiProject AFC

Hello Primefac. As I have an intention to significantly reduce my activity on Wikipedia, I no longer find the time to review drafts submitted through the Articles for creation process. I would like to request I be moved to Inactive participants for the time being. Should I feel the need to come back to reviewing drafts later on, I will definitely reapply for the tools. Thanks in advance! Jalen Barks (Woof) 17:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Can do. Primefac (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Link in bot edit summary

With regards to this edit by your bot, the link in the edit summary doesn't go to a discussion. Rockfang (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Whoops. That should have gone to Special:PermaLink/1279745236#Standard_parameter_name_for_Wikidata_IDs not Special:PrefixIndex. Was doing a bunch of prefix searching right before, clearly had that on the brain when I typed out the summary and double-checked it. Primefac (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

And why are these edits, which seem purely cosmetic, necessary? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

They are not purely cosmetic; the parameters are no longer used and therefore needed to be replaced. Primefac (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

"the parameters are no longer used" – That's not what was requested nor supported nor what you first implemented. But, while I had preferred keeping |WD=, it's done now. Thanks for the template change anyway. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh goodness, not sure how I misread that part of the discussion. Thanks for pointing that out. Primefac (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Re-creation/Restoration request of Template:Articles on first-level administrative divisions of North American countries

So back in February 2022 you deleted the aforementioned template based on an AfD discussion from September 8, 2021. However, earlier today I reviewed a related template that would likely have been axed if not for a lack of nominations, and compared it to what Template:Americas topic would spit out when appended with the "Administrative divisions of" prefix which the nominator @Izno suggested for a redirect.

The truth is that, upon review, I found out that while the topics are similar, they do not overlap. For example, on the generated template (an example of which exists on Provinces of Panama), clicking on the link reading "Brazil" takes you to Administrative divisions of Brazil, but on Template:Articles on first-level administrative divisions of South American countries it instead leads to Federative units of Brazil. The same is true for all other South American countries.

Therefore I believe the deletion of Template:Articles on first-level administrative divisions of North American countries was in error, and should be restored so the necessary corrective work could be done. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 18:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure I quite follow your logic; because the South American version of the template is not good, and has not yet been nominated for deletion, I should undelete the North American version of the template? Primefac (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

The South American template, and all related templates in its immediate series, focus on the first-level administrative divisions of countries. The deletion of the North American template in my opinion was a mistake as the topics (first-level administrative divisions of North American countries) to not directly overlap with "Administrative divisions of [American country in general]".

To use a few North American examples, the first-level administrative divisions of Canada are its ten provinces and three territories, while the first-level administrative divisions of Mexico are its 31 states and Mexico City, and the first-level administrative divisions of Cuba are its fifteen provinces and one Special Municipality. If it were like the South American countries, and countries of other continents for that matter, with a dedicated template for first-level administrative divisions of North American countries, then there would be a shortcut allowing direct navigation between these first-level administrative divisions. As it stands, North America is the only continent without such a template as it was deleted three years ago. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 02:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

The South American template, and all related templates in its immediate series, focus on the first-level administrative divisions of countries -- so did the deleted NA template; with the exception of there being more countries the type of links are pretty much identical.

I have no connection or affinity to this template, in either state (deleted or live), but the TFD determined that it should be deleted. If there are other similar templates that have not been nominated for deletion, it means only that neither the nominator (as they admitted) nor anyone else has found time/interest in nominating them. Since you have concerns that it should be an all-or-nothing situation, I am fine with nominating the rest of the template family for deletion, if only for consistency. Primefac (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly disagree. These templates provide adequate navigation where, an automatically generated "Administrative divisions of the Americas" template fails to.

You see, "Administrative divisions of the Americas" instead creates a hodgepodge mix of administrative divisions overview articles (such as Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Haiti, and Peru), articles of first-level administrative divisions (such as Canada, Mexico, Panama, the United States, and Uruguay), and redirects back to the nation's article (such as Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Suriname).

There is a need to restore the template, because the one you have there is not functioning as it should. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 12:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see the disconnect; you cannot of course see the deleted template, and are thus making guesses as to its content. See Special:Permalink/1279086169 for what it looked like at the time of deletion, which is not how you describe it. Primefac (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I see what you meant there. Perhaps I could draft an improved version of the template for you to determine its suitability? After all the template creation page does suggest for someone who's making an identical-or-similar template to consult the deleter. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 13:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

So, first, thanks for the permalink.

As stated, I have set up a draft template, reworking the permalinked template to something that's more usable. This arranges the North American nations into North America (proper), Central America, and the Caribbean, and replaces links that are not focused on the topic. Only 11 of the 26 links in this draft template could be found on the generated template, all of which are themselves redirected from an "administrative divisions of X country" format.

Let me know what you think. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 17:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

The template appears rather different from the deleted one, and your argument is sound, so I could see that as a reasonable recreation to overcome the issues presented at the TFD. Primefac (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Here's the resulting template, I further asked other editors on the Wikipedia Discord server for their preferences. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 19:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Named refs

Moved to WT:AWB

Special:Diff/1222731766/1280896552 .. it included an entire URL as part of a named ref(!). I assume because it wanted the page number, and the |page= contains a URL. Would it be possible to squelch URLs when creating a named ref? -- GreenC 02:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

That would be a question for WT:AWB, since the change in question was as a result of doing genfixes. Your logic seems sound, though. Primefac (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion there. Primefac (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

BunnysBot 6

Hey Primefac, a quick request following on the above task. Can I also do gen fixes while tagging for the above tasks? I know I did not ask for it in the BRFA, so completely understand if you disagree, but thought to ask a small request. It may also help normalize the banners, so minimizing any possible errors with pages with weird template formatting. Thanks! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Genfixes are always a good idea. Primefac (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 01:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@Primefac and Bunnypranav:: I have documented this approval here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Cheers, ta. Primefac (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Headbomb! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Odd behavior from new account

Would you or another admin have a look at User:Akrynim's edits and page creations? Something smells odd about how forward they are about stating they aren't a sock, and how in their first edit here, they claim they are running for adminship. Also surprised at how quick they got to creating category and "policy" pages about admins. Category:Wikipedia:Blocking policy and Wikipedia:Administrators are not evil. Zinnober9 (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I just thought I would be suitable for being an admin. Akrynim (👁‍🗨 Jam on! · 🏁 Check it!) 01:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

It's good and admirable to have some lofty goals here. From my point of view, finding a new user writing a policy essay about editing and interacting with admin with no editing experience, and seeing that they are also claiming not to be a sock and to be on track for adminship where no RfA exists, weren't a comforting group of simultaneous occurrences. I've probably been a bit too WP:bitey towards you in this regard, so sorry about that. Seeing good edits on articles helps instill trust, so I highly recommend editing and improving some articles you have an interest in and learning how Wikipedia works for a while before messing with policy essays and such. Apologies and best wishes, Zinnober9 (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Nah, don't worry about it, you were right the first time. -- asilvering (talk) 05:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with listening to your gut. One point of note, if you want to discuss a user without them being alerted to it, use {{no ping}} instead of a wikilink. Primefac (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I had thought we had to go and actually "at" them for them to get notification so that's on me, thanks for sharing that. At the point of my second comment I felt I was in the grey area between laying out a suspicious evidence case and bite, so felt I should extend a small olive branch of AGF on the chance I was wrong and reading into things. Thank you both. Zinnober9 (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh, aye, nothing done wrong on your end, the only time you're really "required" to notify someone that you're talking about them is when you're at a Noticeboard (AN, ANI, BN, etc). Just talking about someone else on another user's page (especially if there are questions about their motivations) a ping is generally best avoided. Primefac (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Template request

Would you semi-protect Template:British Columbia and Template:Prince Edward Island as you have with Template:Alberta? I found someone using all of the {{CA province}} templates, but that these two were reporting as nonexistent, so I created these to mirror the redirects of the others in the set. Thanks, Zinnober9 (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

If they get to the point where they're being used, a bot will auto-protect them. If they're brand-new and not really used, I'm not sure there's much need to protect them at this point in time. Primefac (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for that info. I don't deal with creating templates too often, so was pattern matching based on existing and assumed. Zinnober9 (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Anton Hetz

Primefac Hello, I would like to implement this article, which I consider to be uncyclopedically relevant. Could you help me implement it? Countet (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. I think you have received some good feedback on the draft (via the decline message) and at the AfC WikiProject talk thread. If you have any further questions please let me know. Primefac (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

AfC Probation

Hello :-)

I was looking through policy and didn't see anything regarding this... is AfC probationary status reviewed automatically? Or do we need to request permanent privileges? Cheers MWFwiki (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Neither; I go through the list every few months and review. Primefac (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Cool, cool; Cheers, thanks for your time. MWFwiki (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Darja Varfolomeev

Hi there, the PrimeBOT edit here removed a swath of content from the infobox, and damaged the infobox... I fixed it, but wanted to give you a heads-up in case I restored some incorrect content. Mind taking a look? Thanks! Jessicapierce (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Interesting, good catch. It's a bit of a GIGO issue here; the line break in the wikilink makes AWB think it's a new line which makes it think that it's an invalid parameter. Not sure what the best fix for this would be (it's likely to be fairly rare) but I'll cross-post this issue to AWB's talk and maybe get it added to the genfixes. Primefac (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Infobox Fraternity

Could you please take a look at the change that I made at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_fraternity&diff=1283177102&oldid=1282336816 and let me know if you have any ideas why it didn't work. the idea is to remove those infoboxes with type = umbrella from those where it complains about no chapters. :(Naraht (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Will do so when I can, have had some late nights recently. Primefac (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

thank you.Naraht (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It looks like your code is working. I see the category applied properly at Odd Fellows. The category is properly not applied at Coburger Convent, where |type=umbrella. If you are having issues, please link to an example page and explain the issue. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, was going to reply earlier but got sidetracked. As Jonesey says, everything looks to be working properly. Primefac (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Parameter removal bot run request

Hey Primefac, I hope you're well. I started working on removal a deprecated parameter when I remembered that you have a bot task to do just that! In typing this up, I remembered you actually fulfilled a similar request for the same template a bit over 10 months ago. I was wondering, would you be able to remove the image_size parameter from entries in Category:Pages using infobox NFL biography with unsupported parameters? I expect it to be a 11,000–11,500 edits. This change to the infobox was made 16 days ago by @Dissident93 and they mentioned it on the template talk page here. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, can do, I have a bit of a backlog of AWB bot runs but they're for the most part small so I can probably get to it this weekend. Primefac (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

No worries, that's still faster than I'd get through them all! Thanks Primefac! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorted. Primefac (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2025).

Administrator changes

• Giraffer
• Goldsztajn

Dennis Brown

• Cyclonebiskit
• Nohat
• Someguy1221

Bureaucrat changes

Barkeep49

CheckUser changes

0xDeadbeef

Oversighter changes

GB fan

Moneytrees

Miscellaneous

• Sign up for The Core Contest, a competition running from 15 April to 31 May to improve vital articles.

University of Minnesota Marching Band

In ticket:2025041310004935 the user wanted to create an account, and have their contribution attributed to them - and seemed happy with the result in their response. I'm also not super keen on leaving unattributed unreferenced factual claims on articles. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

To be somewhat nitpicky attribution is still there, but only certain individuals can view it. But sure, I'll let them make the edit. Primefac (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Idea for improving Template:Edit COI

Hi Primefac, I'm Bill Beutler from Beutler Ink. My colleagues and I use the COI edit request system to propose changes on behalf of clients and have been thinking through some ways we might improve the experience—for both reviewers and requesters—via updates to the Template:Edit COI, which I know you have helped maintain.

I'm drafting a more detailed proposal that I can share with you soon, but I wanted to give you a quick heads-up and invite any early thoughts. The gist is to increase transparency and usability by adding fields like a brief request summary and request status, which could make the workflow more accessible and effective for volunteer editors.

I'm also reaching out to Anomie, since any template changes would need to be coordinated with AnomieBOT and the COIREQTable. I'll keep both conversations in sync, and would be glad to hear your perspective before posting my full thoughts.

More soon, and thanks in advance for your time! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Never a problem proposing changes to a template; I have it watchlisted so I look forward to the discussion you start on its talk page. Primefac (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply! I'll aim to post the suggestions to the template talk page sometime next week. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 47

Hello, Primefac,

I'm not sure what happened here but we have over a hundred red links that I traced back to this operation. Look at User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirects. I don't think all of these template pages need to be deleted, just revert the last edit by Primebot on the page. But it's resulted in red links on articles wherever these templates are transcluded. What do you think? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh ffs, I'll fix it. And no, the template pages do not need to be deleted, I just was an idiot and changed {{Districts of ...}} to #REDIRECT [[Districts of... because I forgot to add the Template prefix. Primefac (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi

Hi @Primefac I am concerned about this (more info here). I saw this and wanted to check with you before going to any boards with it. What do you think about that situation? Is this something that needs to go to a board for e.g. WP:COMPETENCE?

Thank you in advance

i know you're a dog (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

If you think that their AFC helper status needs to be looked at, WT:AFC is the place to raise that as an issue; I know they're on probationary status and any admin can unilaterally remove them, but from a cleanup perspective it's better to get more eyes on the situation, especially when it doesn't look like any of their acceptances have raised flags. If you're concerned about AFD as well, then ANI might be the place to go, but I would make sure you have a solid case against them; it's less about blowback (as Graham was mentioning) but more that ANI tends to not take any action where the outcome is somewhat vague (it usually gets bogged down in side discussions). Happy to answer any other questions you may have. Primefac (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I will post at WT:AFC. i know you're a dog 03:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I've posted here. Thanks for the guidance and explanation about ANI vs WT:AFC.

i know you're a dog 04:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2025).

Administrator changes

Rusalkii

NaomiAmethyst (overlooked last month)

• Master Jay
• Orderinchaos
• Roger Davies
• Tinucherian

Interface administrator changes

Galobtter

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, administrator elections were permanently authorized on a five-month schedule. The next election will be scheduled soon; see Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections for more information. This is an alternate process to the RfA process and does not replace the latter.
• An RfC was closed with consensus to allow editors to opt-out of seeing "sticky decorative elements". Such elements should now be wrapped in {{sticky decoration wrapper}}. Editors who wish to opt out can follow the instructions at WP:STICKYDECO.
• An RfC has resulted in a broad prohibition on the use of AI-generated images in articles. A few common-sense exceptions are recognized.

Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

Draft:Christopher Mellon

Thanks for the epic clean up there. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Always happy to help. Primefac (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Please do not replace every "transl" template shortcut with the much more visually noisy "transliteration"

There's no community consensus for this change, and the edits are both a distraction for other editors watching the pages and also create a worse result for anyone reading or editing the page source.

If you need to replace these, it should be with the {{tlit}} abbreviation, if anything. –jacobolus (t) 04:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 12 § translation redirects, there is a consensus to delete this redirect, which means replacing it with its target. Primefac (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Did you read the discussion at all? There are a wide range of long established editors arguing that these redirects should not be deleted (except for the names with periods at the end, for which there's a split in preference between deletion vs. retargeting, and not very strong opinions involved), and then the one closer improperly substituted their own personal preference to make a decision. Nowhere is there any support evidenced for universally replacing the name {{transl}} with {{Transliteration}}; there are however several people who argue that if any replacement is made it must be with an abbreviation such as {{tlit}}. –jacobolus (t) 12:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Replacing a deleted redirect with its canonical target is the normal process here. "tlit" is obscure and jargony, not helpful to regular editors, which is why the template guidelines say that template functions should be clear from their names. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Replacing a deliberately chosen abbreviation with a much longer full name is trampling on the intentions of the original editors of every page where the replacement is performed, does not reflect any kind of community consensus (again, please read the discussion!), and is substantially a disruptive waste of attention, both immediately and into the future when people have to skim past excessively distracting templates peppered liberally in running prose. The creators/frequent users of the transliteration template intentionally created the "tlit" abbreviation as a better alternative to the "transl" (which was the template's original title, later moved to "Transliteration") due to the perceived confusion of "transl" (vs. the translation template), and the concision of a 4-letter shortcut.

Notice that Wiktionary calls common running-prose templates names like "t", "l", "m". Why? Because long template names in running prose destroy the readability of the text markup and making editing a painful slog. (The same concerns do not apply to sparingly used template names appearing outside running prose; it's fine to use long explicit names for those.) –jacobolus (t) 17:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Nobody should stop you from using {{tlit}}, just as nobody should stop me from using {{tl}} in this response, but that is different from carrying out the normal process of replacing a deleted template or redirect per standard procedures and the template guidelines. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

The "normal process" is leading to significantly worse (more cumbersome and distracting) markup across a vast number of pages. I don't agree with you that your bot action is a the inevitable way of resolving this, or that the appropriate action should be personally decided by one or two people with no community input or consensus. I would instead urge you to pause the bot and ask for community feedback to see if it's possible to reconcile various editors' preferences.

Nobody should stop you from using {{tlit}} – Are you suggesting that I could make a bot that aggressively changes every instance of {{Transliteration}}" to "{{tlit}}"? Otherwise, if you mean I can take particular cases manually one example at a time, then you are completely missing the problem. –jacobolus (t) 20:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not my bot. I'm just a talk page watcher who has been an active TFD participant for the past five years or so, describing what normally happens. I'm not suggesting any new, innovative mass action on anyone's part; I'm merely saying that if you use {{tlit}} in your editing, nobody should object or go around changing it. Did Primefac's bot change any instances of {{tlit}}? (P.S. If you think that the standard procedure of replacing deleted redirects with their canonical templates needs changing, Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion is probably a good venue for that. If you think that the closure was incorrect, I think that Wikipedia:Deletion review is the correct venue.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

To respond to various points, in no particular order... no, I did not read the discussion, I follow the directive of the closer (because they put in the effort to read it). The discussion was closed almost a month ago, so any concerns or complaints about the close could have easily been made in that time period (though I do recognise that post-close most of the notices disappear and it's not until someone like me starts implementing it do people notice/complain). No, going through and replacing all of the full-name transclusions with shortcuts would not be appropriate, because you do not have consensus and AWB (which I assume you would use) does not allow this sort of mass-change (noting of course that my bot has approval to implement discussions where such changes were deemed appropriate). And, as Jonesey says, there is nothing stopping users from using other extant shortcuts going forward. I will say that I considered replacing the to-be-deleted redirect with another short one, but I honestly didn't know if that redirect would be nominated for deletion in the future so I figured I would err on the side of caution (and to be slightly cynical, I'm sure someone would complain I was using "the wrong shortcut" anyway). If you have any other questions please let me know. Primefac (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

"I follow the directive of the closer" – Leaving aside that I believe this discussion was improperly closed and not following community consensus, I don't see any directive about mass replacing {{transl}} with {{Transliteration}} in the closing message. So really "following the directives" is more like "interpreting however I feel like at the time"; this change seems even less supported by any community consensus than the deletion of the transl shortcut, which already seems quite controversial and unsupported by the community. " closed almost a month ago [...] any concerns or complaints about the close could have easily been made in that time period" – This is false. It was closed barely a week ago (18:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)). I was traveling until the past few days and not paying attention to Wikipedia, and am making my complaint at the earliest possible time (for me). –jacobolus (t) 23:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

To your last point... my apologies, I was looking at the nomination date and not the closing date. As far as the interpretation goes, "delete all" for redirects still means "replace it with something", with that something being a request to replace with the target template. Primefac (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know about these requests. Fair enough; I guess the blame belongs entirely to User:DMacks then. This is now basically impossible to undo (cf. WP:FAIT), and we're permanently sticking vast numbers of pages with a cumbersome and distracting markup based on the preference of a few people, over the objections of a majority who never asked for such a change. –jacobolus (t) 23:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

And now that you have just deleted the template redirect, all of the historical revisions going back years of many, many (tens of thousands?) of pages are permanently broken. Sigh. I guess nobody on Wikipedia cares about legible permalinks or supporting Wikipedia's advice to external authors to cite specific revisions because they "won't change". –jacobolus (t) 23:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

"If you think that the standard procedure of replacing deleted redirects with their canonical templates needs changing," – Yes, this should not be a "standard procedure" but should involve some amount of thought and consideration on a case-by-case basis, and deletion closers should try to adopt a remedy that is supported by community consensus rather than a one-size-fits-all bureaucratic rule. What should be done with a deleted template depends on the context and the reason for the deletion. Most templates are used sparingly and outside of running prose (e.g. as invisible directives, top-of-page banners, wrappers around blocks of content, etc.), and often not even in article pages. For these, there's really no particular legibility advantage for a shortcut name. If it were e.g. decided to change the title of {{reflist}} to a longer name like {{reference list}} and change every instance of the former name to the latter, it would be fine as far as markup legibility is concerned, indeed probably an improvement: this is a template that appears precisely once on a page, is not interfering with running text, and indicates a large block of content, so there would be a benefit for being explicit with a name that is easy to immediately understand, for no particular long-term cost. Other templates are intended to be used liberally within running text, and for these there is a strong advantage to using a shortcut, because shorter template names improve the legibility of the markup. For instance {{r}}, {{sfn}}, {{pgs}}, {{tmath}} or {{tlit}} are shortcut names for which brevity is a fundamental goal, and using names like "reference by name", "shortened footnote", "page numbers", "latex math formula", or "transliteration" is dramatically inferior. –jacobolus (t) 23:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

You are raising issues about RFD in the wrong place. This is a single editor's talk page. That editor runs a bot that was approved by the community to run tasks that implement consensus-based decisions. I linked to better venues above. You are welcome to use them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

That editor's bot is the actor actively causing the harm, so it seems like the obvious first place to go, but I guess fine I can try to make a much bigger political stink if you really prefer. –jacobolus (t) 21:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth raising the issue with me, as the bot operator, is the proper first step. However, in this case I do not agree with your assessment of the situation and thus am neither going to reverse my bot's edits nor take any action towards changing policy, as it is you that wishes to do so. I'm not sure you really need to make a "political stink" about the matter; your concerns are not unreasonable and thus asking for current consensus to change is part of how Wikipedia works; however, the more vitriol you put into proposing this change the less likely you will get a positive reception. Primefac (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Bot edit: Date added to template:expand

Hello Primefac! Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurasian_blue_tit&diff=1288768497&oldid=1288018349 the bot added the date "May 2025" from when it made the date-adding edit. The template itself was added in Nov 2024, i think this date should be added (?). --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

shrugs The page doesn't appear to have been significantly expanded since the time that template was added, so the date is somewhat immaterial. I don't disagree that the person who added the tag should have added a date, and I'm surprised a different bot didn't add one (templates like that usually get done automatically), but I'm also not opposed to you changing the date to the original; it's basically just putting the page in a slightly different category. Primefac (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Page unprotection request

Hi Primefac, would you be willing to downgrade the page protection level of the Skype article, which you indefinitely semi-protected in April 2022? My rationale is that Skype has become quite 'unpopular' over the years, and now with microsoft completely ending the service lately (RIP), I doubt that it will still be a frequent target for vandalism anymore. The talk page of the article has had almost zero unconstructive or nonsense edits on it since May 2022 which further suggests that.

Also it looks like the one IP troll responsible for the many oversighted unconstructive edits leading up to that indef semi (e.g. here) has quit doing what they were doing very soon enough (within one month) after that protection anyways. — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Skype is a page where people over the years, for whatever reason, feel they need to add their number; the page was protected because obviously there was someone that was heavily spamming numbers, but I still think that number-spamming will likely still be a problem. That being said, with Skype being deactivated the chances of that will likely decrease in the future, so I'll time-rate the protection instead of indef. Primefac (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Understood. That's a reasonable decision I'm happy with! — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

AFCH script!

Thank you for your review and addition to AfC reviewing. Please guide me as I am facing an issue in installing the AFCH script. I am eager to start working and reviewing in accordance with the policies. I have enabled the script in gadgets and purged the cache. Still, not working, then I disabled all those in common.js as the one mentioned in archived talk page of yours was not showing on mine, even after that unable to use it. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

What (if any) error messages are you getting when you attempt to review a draft? Primefac (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. No, no errors shown in particular. I am unable to use the script as there is no script using-option for reviewing. I have tried following the instructions mentioned in my comment above per WP guidelines. I have also tried removing and adding the script in Gadgets several times by now. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

AFCH does not work on mobile view, which looks to be how you are making most of your edits. Primefac (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

That might be the case. Dude/Sir/madam, I was so confused, thank you. I will check it on my mac and see if it works.

Can you further guide about if I enable all those in common.js as they aren't a problem right? HilssaMansen19 (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

They shouldn't be, if I recall correctly (without actually looking at my talk archives) the script issue was from people having both the gadget and script enabled at the same time; I don't think other scripts mess with the AFCH gadget. Primefac (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much Primefac. I will start working sooner on article reviewing. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 08:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Revdel request

Back in 2020 BMN123 began inserting material that was intended to harass on Volkovskoye Municipal Okrug with Howaboutthis9796 (background context the sockmaster can also be identified by this characteristic space race edit), which was subsequently reverted and oversighted by L235. From the page history it's clear that similar material was subsequently reinserted not only on that page, but on several others with the sockmaster using both proxies and accounts, including as recently as 2023.

I understand that once the target of harassment is deceased there is going to be increased reluctance by functionaries to entirely prevent the review of page histories, which is why I'm asking here rather than IRC, nonetheless I believe the material is purely disruptive, and that given the sockmasters history of posting harassing links offwiki, revision deletion is appropriate. I also know the period of time covered by the required revdels will be significant, but larger swaths of a page's history have been revision deleted in the past.

If you are willing, the revisions to be deleted are to , to , to , , to , to , to , to , to , to , to , , to , to , to , to , to , to , .

All IPs are stale. Abudahbi, Howaboutthis9796, Krouwhorst, and Afr962 are already blocked. Pa k kieres saver eso, and Editer6969 are not blocked, but BMN123 does not often reactivate non-AC accounts though login details are sometimes shared and if reactivated won't take up much of our time.

Municipal Okrug 75 and Volkovskoye Municipal Okrug are both G5-eligible; I don't really see the need to delete them and won't tag them, but I don't see the need to retain them, so I have no objection to deletion either.

They were also active again recently on some of their regular targets, so I may poke around a little to see if I can find more disruption, or maybe in a couple of weeks when I have time again. If Sideswipe9th comes off wikibreak that'd be the best go to person for this one, and CFA is also familiar with the case, but hopefully on a shorter term wikibreak.

Thanks for your consideration, 184.152.65.118 (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

One more detail. I just removed some additional material that is probably BMN123 harassing people . It's possible full disclosure is be a reference to a feud between the subject of the LTA's obsession and non disclosure but it's unclear (context) haven't checked enough to be sure, but there are perfectly good reasons to remove it regardless of whether or not it is sock added. I don't have the time to crosscheck any names or check page history, but there may be more revdel needed, sorry to dump this on you, and thanks for your continuing assistance. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 06:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

L235, I'm not seeing a ticket related to this action; the edits in question don't seem that problematic on their own? Primefac (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@Primefac: Emailing you about this, thanks for the ping. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:AfC statistics

The indef admin only protection seems to be unsupported by policy and not warranted for one case of vandalism where the editor involved wasn't even warned about it. Fram (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Primefac (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

AfC graph

Hello, please see this. AfC folks want me to update the graph on a daily basis (whenever needed), so if you can give permission and amend the BRFA accordingly, that would be appreciated. – DreamRimmer ■ 08:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. I'll do the paperwork later. Primefac (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi there, While reviewing drafts, I came across Draft:Shashwat Singh. The subject appears to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, as there is significant coverage in reliable sources, and he has performed notable songs for prominent films. However, I noticed that the creator of the draft has been blocked for undisclosed paid editing. Given this context, I’d like guidance on whether we should proceed to review and consider moving the draft to the mainspace, assuming it meets content and sourcing standards, or if the involvement of a blocked user should affect this decision. Please guide. Afstromen (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

While it's not a valid reason for deletion, it's ultimately the call of the reviewer whether to approve or decline. If the draft is neutral, well-sourced, and otherwise meets the notability/neutrality criteria, then I see no reason to decline. That being said, since you know the creator was blocked for UPE, I would suggest you to go back over the draft with a fine-tooth comb, in particular the references, to make sure the sources provided aren't native advertising or other pay-to-publish sources, which would appear to be RS used to give the appearance of significant coverage. Primefac (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. I’ll review the draft closely and ensure all sources are reliable and meet Wikipedia’s standards.

Afstromen (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Primefac, I hope you are doing well. I’m facing an issue while attempting to review Draft:Naale Rajaa Koli Majaa. An error appears during the review process, and I’m not sure what’s causing it. Please guide.Afstromen (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific? I do not see any issues with AFCH, at least as far as functionality prior to final button-pressing goes. Primefac (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Error moving Draft:Naale Rajaa Koli Majaa to Naale Rajaa Koli Majaa: "titleblacklist-forbidden-move"

it appears, when I click on accept button. Afstromen (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll be around all day, accept the page to Sunday Special, let me know, and I'll move it to the proper location. I'm not sure why it's giving you a title blackllist error but as an admin I can move it for you (I just want you to do the review itself). Primefac (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I have reviewed the draft and noted that the film has received coverage in multiple reliable sources, including reviews from notable publications. Based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines for films, it appears to meet the criteria for inclusion and is suitable for moving to the mainspace. Afstromen (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Question on the probation thing

So it has been about 4.5 months since I've requested AfC rights, and I was placed on this probation thing. Do I have to reapply for the evaluation to happen or is it going to be random? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The latter. Primefac (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

ah, thank you 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Attention needed

I have requested AFC right and you have marked it  Not done and raised your concern.
Kindly see once Special:Diff/1292357482, in this I have given a valid reason for your concern. If possible, please give me some time in probation period to demonstrate my knowledge. If my rationale is not sufficient kindly let me know, what I should do to demonstrate my knowledge.
VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Revisiting Template:Edit COI

Hi Primefac, in April I posted here about proposing some changes to Template Edit:COI, and you recommended posting to the template's talk page, which I did. There have been no replies, even after trying to get eyes on it via the WikiProject Edit requests talk page. There seems to be no objection, at least, and I would like to WP:BEBOLD about it, if possible. Since you're the primary maintainer of the template, I'm wondering if you agree and would be willing to help implement it. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Sure; feel free to sandbox it, make sure everything is working right, and then put in a {{TPER}} to get it implemented. Primefac (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm a little green when it comes to this kind of thing, but I'll see how far I can get on my own and then come back to you for advice if I get stuck. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

OK, let's see if I've got anything here: User:WWB_Too/Request_edit_template. As previously noted, template coding is outside my comfort zone, but I gave it a shot. In the interests of disclusure—and humility—I consulted with ChatGPT to help me make sense of it. As a result, I don't expect the coding I've come up with to work exactly as planned, but I do think it provides a logical structure for how I see Template:Edit COI improving. I also took the liberty of trying to name some of the parameters that are currently unnamed in the existing template. Meanwhile, just today Encoded voiced support for this idea at WikiProject Edit requests, so perhaps they can be of help as well. Let me know what you think! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2025).

Administrator changes

• DDima
• Gimmetrow
• Huon
• Johan Elisson
• Spangineer
• The Land

Interface administrator changes

0xDeadbeef

CheckUser changes

L235

Oversight changes

L235

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to determine whether the English Wikipedia community should adopt a position on AI development by the WMF and its affiliates.

Technical news

• A new feature called Multiblocks will be deployed on English Wikipedia on the week of June 2. See the relevant announcement on the administrators' noticeboard.
• History merges performed using the mergehistory special page are now logged at both the source and destination, rather than just the source as previously, after this RFC and the resolution of T118132.

Arbitration

• An arbitration case named Indian military history has been opened. Evidence submissions for this case close on 8 June.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 17 June 2025. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!
• An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in June 2025, with over 1,600 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in June 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

User_talk:166:109:26:47:0:0:0:0:0:0:0/32

Hi @Primefac. I'm a bit confused by the page just created at User_talk:166:109:26:47:0:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 . I'm guessing you don't have anything to do with it, but flagging just in case since it says you blocked that person. meamemg (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Someone probably just copied a block notice from somewhere else. Thanks for the note. Primefac (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

blp=no should be retained

Hi, it's a known issue with AWB "general fixes", but "blp=no" shouldn't be removed from the banner shell like your bot did here. The-Pope (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I just came to say almost the exact same thing, but to point to Talk:Sayyd Abdul Al-Khabyyr. It's happened in various instances in the past day it seems, which is populating Category:Biography articles without blp parameter. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

it's a known issue with AWB "general fixes" - I run my bot with genfixes, so this is an issue that is largely outwith my control. Feel free to ping the folks at WT:AWB about it. Primefac (talk) 10:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Flagged over a year ago with AWB (here), came up again a bit later, then started to believe it was fixed (Oct 2024), and code looked promising. Not seen much of it happening this year, but I don't always pay attention. :-) @Primefac: before I flag it to WT:AWB again, please could you confirm you're using the latest version? Thank you. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Huh, I thought I was. Am now. Primefac (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The World Destubathon

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is over $3300 going into it, with $500 the top prize and $300 top prize for most Science and Tech destubs and improvements. If you are interested in winning something to save you money in buying books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for subjects which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested. Even if you can only manage a few articles they would be very much appreciated and help make the content produced as diverse and broad as possible! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)