User talk:Primefac/Archive 4

• CanOzmaden (talk · contribs)
  • Tarabya British Schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Tarabya British Schools (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Primefac,
First of all, thank you for the review of the page, I am a 12th grade student in this school and I felt the need to create the wikipage for the school as one of my academic projects. Following Wikipedia's guidelines to sources, I've deleted all of the primary links to the school website as pointed out by you. There are a lot of new references, majority being Turkish newspaper articles. To adress the name of the school: Since the school is located in Turkey, there are obviously a lot of references to the school in Turkish, but most commonly with or without the prefix "Özel" (private in turkish) either "Tarabya İngiliz Okulları" (literally Tarabya English Schools) or "Tarabya Anadolu Lisesi" (Tarabya Anatolian Lyceum that corresponds for Anatolian High School). Rarely, but still sometimes the school is referred by a name used only in the first year of operations "Horizon International College" or any iteration of it. This name comes from the fact that the school itself was established by the Horizon Education Group referred in the first paragraph of the article. But again it is rarely used nowadays, and one can only come across it in old documents, since the school established its image through the name Tarabya British Schools
Now concerning...

• DofE scheme

There isn't a direct article relating to the school's paricipation, but there is an Annual Report issued by the DofE officials in Turkey (PDF^[1]) which I included in the references in the article itself. You can find the list of schools taking part in the award scheme on page 10, and there the school is under the name of "Özel Tarabya İngiliz Okulları", and on page 48 the visit of DofE officials to the school. Also there is an article released in a turkish newspaper Sabah concerning the scheduled visit of Prince Edward on October 15 precisely because of the school's active participation in the DofE program^[2].

• Eurobalades Erasmus+

Concerning Eurobalades, the link I provided previously did show the participation of the school, but it was under the name of Horizon International College, an issue I discussed in detail above.

la Turquie (Horizon International College – Istanbul)

There's a brochure created by the school presenting quick facts about Turkey for the project, and one can clearly see the school logo on bottom right corner and find schools website in the link section^[3], and there's a communication guide booklet, which essentially translates common phrases in the languages of the countries participating in this project, and in the end on page 65 there's a list of institutions participating, there it is under "Özel Tarabya Anadolu Lisesi". Moreover, I also included a link to a gradening company in Istanbul named Terraqua, which helped us to organize a garden of plants from the countries paticipatig in Erasmus+ Eurobalades. It's actually one of the main goals of the project, and has been conseptualized by Tarabya British Schools. On the page you can find photos and info in Turkish about the gardening section of Eurobalades^[4].

• Unnecessary info under High School section

It is interesting to see that the reviewers on the German section of Wikipedia have actually deemed this information quite necessary, since Tarabya Brisih Schools exists in the actual article space^[5]. So, I'm afraid to tell, but I think the deletion of the content was subjective and with no underlying reason. See the private German school in Istanbul, it has an astonishingly huge section just explaining which subjects do the students take.

There are many more languages coming, the Russian version currenlty being a draft^[6], the Turkish version to be created soon, and also planned: French, Spanish, Korean and Arabic. English version will always serve as a hub for the other ones (updates, new info etc), so it's crucial for me to have it in the article space ASAP.

I am looking forward for more cooperation and advices from you,
Sincerely, CanOzmaden (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Primefac I noticed about twenty unintentional reference errors like this with the rmv table deletions. Regards CV9933 (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

CV9933, I'll go through and fix those shortly. Thanks for the notice. Primefac (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fight for Canada, you said that you had found a Huffington Post review for the book. Would you mind saying where you found it? I haven't been able to. --Biblioworm 15:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Biblioworm, I misread the article, the HuffPo piece was actually about a film. Explains why you couldn't find it though... Primefac (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Graffitihistory (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Raseone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. Thank you for reviewing the article so quickly. I have improved the specificity of the citations & added more sources. I am working now to add citations to existing wikipedia pages and fair use images from the yale book.

Hello. I was told I can not add the images until the article is approved. I have enhanced the citations. Can you please tell me more specifically what is lacking here. I am surprised that a yale university textbook is not reliable enough. Am I doing the citations wrong? This is my first article but I have several other well known artists & musicians I would like to list so I could really use your help in understanding how to get these articles started so the community can see & contribute to them.

Graffitihistory (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Graffitihistory, it's not that the Yale textbook isn't reliable, but rather that it is your only reliable source. The other sources you give either are brief mentions or unreliable sites. You need to add more independent sources that talk about Raseone specifically. Specifically, there are some claims ("...the first known digital typeface created..." etc) which must have references. If you can't find a reference for something, you should remove it from the text. Check out WP:REFB (section 3.1) for information about the best/easiest way to add references to the text. Primefac (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

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

I have now added a reference to the Wikipedia Mediterranean diet page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_diet

on which the PREDIMED Diet study is built. I believe that as a therapeutic diet, it can stand as a Wikipedia entry on its own. My write-up is objective (I think!) and solely based on the scientific literature (as referenced). 

I did read the reference link for what is not appropriate for Wikipedia, but still think this is an objective, well-referenced description of a particular diet, and its causal links to preventing cardiovascular and other diseases. I reference several papers which show how this unique study compares different variants of the Mediterranean diet to a Control group. Consequently, the clinical study outcomes are uniquely controlled and therefore "real."

If this does not meet your criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, can you please give me more information about why not, and perhaps what I could do to make it appropriate.

Thank you, Mike Siani-Rose

Sianirose, the main reason why I declined it as NOTJOURNAL is because of the excessive amount of jargon in the text. Phrases like "...the MeDiet+EVOO cohort (2539 patients), there were 18 cases..." and "However, compared to the Control group..." come straight out of research publications. Your page simply lists statistics and basically acts as a review paper when it really needs to be a summary. It's less about the numbers and more about the results. Of course, if this is all groundbreaking or otherwise recent research, our policy of TOOSOON may be in play as well.

One other thing you could try doing is adding independent reliable sources that aren't journal articles; something to show that the mainstream media has noticed these studies. I'm not saying you have to do that, but it might help.

To summarise - remove the technical language, add some more sources, and try to summarize rather than give too much detail. Primefac (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Primefac. I will address your concerns. No problem!

More later, Mike Siani-Rose§Sianirose (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. I am a researcher of auditory and visual stimulation (AVS) using mind machines, and have researched many studies as to the clinical findings of the effects of AVS on the brain. I would like to share this knowledge, and would like to write an article based on many recent study findings, with appropriate citations. I did not intend to "self promote", only add to the research findings. I will work on an article and follow closely the Wikipedia guidelines, terms, and conditions carefully before attempting to submit. Thank you again for your prompt response. Respectfully, Ruth olmstead (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm stil waiting for a reply here. Huritisho 12:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Seems that you are working on the template mergings mentioned at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Holding_cell#Arts. I just noticed that Template:Bollywood and Template:Bollywood films are similar such templates which I missed to nominate in the first place. Can you merge them too or should I officially nominate them? I tried merging myself but I couldn't achieve it. Too many parameters I missed I suppose. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Dharmadhyaksha, I'll be BOLD and make it a redirect, and if someone objects we can bring it to TFD. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Admin Graeme Bartlett said in a couple of edits that the list is perfectly ok. I suggest you check out his edits there Draft talk:List of exoplanets. And ignore my last ping. I added it because you were not replying Huritisho 05:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

He allowed me to add it back in mainspace. See my edit summary, as it contains more info. Cheers, Huritisho 07:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe the discussion is ripe for closing. However you commented that some interdependencies needed to be resolved, and volunteered to try, so I wanted to check with you if all the templates concerned have been fixed. Have they been fixed? Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 08:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

BethNaught, everything should be good to close, the edits mentioned weren't directly connected to the cobdX templates. Primefac (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I have now closed the discussion. BethNaught (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

BethNaught, on a related note, are you using a script to close the TFDs? Primefac (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't. Why do you ask? BethNaught (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering if there was a one-click way to do NACs like at AFD. Primefac (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a basic script, but it only adds the header, footer and result to the discussion. It doesn't perform any of the other necessary actions or allow for a custom rationale. The Earwig is working on a more fully-featured script, though it could be a while before it is finished. BethNaught (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Please review my page Draft:Keshavraoji Sonawane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbhijitSonavane (talk • contribs) 15:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

AbhijitSonavane, you have not submitted your page for review. To do so, please add {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. A reviewer will then look at the page. Primefac (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Normhowe (talk · contribs)
  • User:Normhowe/Quality Culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you tell my why my article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Normhowe/Quality_Culture, was declined? Normhowe (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Normhowe, the main reason I declined your draft is it because it reads like a personal essay; Wikipedia is not a SOAPBOX. It's full of unnecessary questions (e.g. "Why is Quality Culture important?"), WEASEL words and FLOWERY language (e.g. "There is ample evidence" - my emphasis added). The fact that a very similar article was deleted for blatant promotion does not help either. My personal advice would be to scrap it and start from scratch, but you can do whatever you feel best. However, I strongly suggest reading through Your first article to understand better what's acceptable for Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hai, I have nominated the film article Loham for GA-status. Which is currently on "Hold on" time and there are some corrections to be done before it ends. Mainly copy editing for grammer and writting style. For making it a good article there are some suggestions referred in Talk:Loham. I invite you to make your contributions to it. --Charles Turing (talk) 08:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

My name is Tolly Burkan. If you Google my name, you will see I have worked hard for 38 years to show that firewalking is not paranormal and that anyone can do it. There are literally thousands of references that confirm this. I taught many celebrities, including Tony Robbins. Every mention of me is cited and referenced. However, there is a group of people who dislike me and are attempting to remove my name wherever it appears in Wikipedia. Their disruptive editing and vandalism is on just three pages: Tony Robbins, Tolly Burkan, and Firewalking. Is there any way to stop this? Thank you for looking into this. (tolly@tollyburkan.com) 73.12.138.134 (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Burkan, I've seen your post on the AFD, and in case you didn't see my response I thought I would also post here. Of the articles I have been able to find that reference you by name, almost all of them simply mention you in passing. In other words, you get barely more than a sentence or two of direct coverage. I do not doubt that you have appeared in many publications, but have any of them been specifically about you? If there are more than a handful, then the deletion nomination may be overturned, but if all you've received are mentions then I'm afraid you might not meet Wikipedia's criteria. Primefac (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I appreciate it. I have been working on this entry for the last few weeks. If you had read my comments, as I was editing, you would have seen that I am including references in the page. Please, do not undue the work that I just pasted into the entry. There are references for each source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RashaAly (talk • contribs) 18:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• DuncansonLivingstonFamilies (talk · contribs)
  • Adrian Burke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Adrian Burke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The Duncanson/Livingston Project would like to know specifically why the numerous +8 citations to printed scholarly journals and current websites documenting all the facts given in the wiki page for Mr. Burke, an internationally recognized scholarly genealogist and writer are insufficient for Wiki to accept the article relating to prominent and active American genealogists? Were the actual links viewed? All but two articles listed have been published and their relevancy and content are available to some degree on the websites cited in the foot notes.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Duncanson Livingston Families Society (talk • contribs) 19:47, 19 October 2015‎ (UTC)

"Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." All information contained in the draft Wiki article "Adrian Benjamin Burke" is found in peer reviewed scholarly publications properly cited as well as by independent active websites of institutions containing information about the subject of this article.

The Duncanson/Livingston Project — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Duncanson Livingston Families Society (talk • contribs) 20:03, 19 October 2015‎ (UTC)

The Duncanson Livingston Families Society, all but two of the references currently in the draft are written by Burke himself. As these are all PRIMARY references, they do nothing to demonstrate Burke's notability. In order to have an article on Wikipedia, subjects must meet the criteria in the Golden Rule, specifically that they receive significant coverage. If no one has written in detail about Burke, then he does not merit an article on Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• 69.46.236.36 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:GB & Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Submission declined

Hi, thks for the feedback. re our page on our company GBandSmith What can I do to make it more notable. Thanks

69.46.236.36 (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

LanceT, first and foremost there are no reliable sources. This is the backbone of the Golden Rule. If there are no references, then notability cannot be determined. Second, your draft is a little bit promotional. Pages about businesses generally should not contain product lists, and the one on this particular draft is full of jargon. As with everything else in the draft, if something can't be sourced, it shouldn't be included. See WP:REFB for information about the best ways to add references to a page. Primefac (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have made modifications adding some references, deleting some product info and updating history. Please let me know your comments. Kind regards

LanceT (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC) LanceT (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Primefac, just wanted to let you know that by mistake I rolled back your edit on Annapurna Devi Mandir. I was attempting to thank you for your edit on the page and erred. I have corrected the mistake. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

AKS.9955, no worries. Thanks for the note. Primefac (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• PESchneider (talk · contribs)
  • Guy McPherson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Guy McPherson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please explain "Please turn the bullet points into prose". Which bullet points are you referring to? Thank you.

PESchneider (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

PESchneider, I was referring to the first part of the "Academic & Service History" section. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so articles should read as such, not like a CV or resume. Thus, the bullet-pointed list should be turned into prose. Primefac (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification 06Dom,TJ,Alex ext2015 (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Re your speedy tags to Template:Oakland Raiders/meta/color and others: templates should not be tagged for speedy until all transclusions have been dealt with. Even then the speedy tag should be bracketed with <noinclude></noinclude>. Your failure to observe these rules meant that Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/New York Jets subproject landed up in CAT:CSD even though it did not need deletion. (I believe there is an "holding cell" system for templates which are scheduled for deletion but still have transclusions. Please investigate.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

RHaworth, my apologies, I thought I had removed all of the transclusions before tagging the templates. It was a large number of templates to check and I was not as thorough as I should have been. I will be more careful in the future. Primefac (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Primefac: There were two drafts about the Harbor House of Central Florida, with overlapping histories. The one that you worked on had a lot of spammy stuff and badly formatted references, so I decided it would be less work to improve the other one and take it to mainspace, where it's now at Harbor House of Central Florida. However, you added a nice infobox to Draft:Harbor House of Central Florida. Would you mind moving it to the new article? Thanks.—Anne Delong (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

A page I created - for a College of Letters and Science, an academic unit of a larger university - was declined, the reason given that there was not sufficient information to distinguish it from the main university entry. I understand and appreciate the concern, but a. Believe there is sufficient information unique to my entry to prove the College's notability as a standalone entry, and b. Have found other similar examples of colleges within universities that maintain standalone entries:

• University of Michigan College of Literature, Science, and the Arts
• University of Texas at Austin College of Natural Sciences
• University of Minnesota College of Liberal Arts
• UC Berkeley College of Letters and Science

I would like more detail of how the entry I have created (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scotttappa12/sandbox/University_of_Wisconsin-Stevens_Point_College_of_Letters_and_Science) is different than these and scores of others like them, which are legitimate standalone pages for notable academic entities that are units of a larger university. Specific steps I can take to gain approval would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Scotttappa12 (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotttappa12 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Scotttappa12: I've replied to your comment on my talk page (the message you left me). Regarding this message, you're not taking into account the content of the actual articles you're comparing your article to. If you compared that, you'd notice your article is lacking a lot of information. I still believe your article isn't ready to be moved to the article namespace. The only reason we're strict is we want there to be no chance for articles from being speedy deleted, or likely to be deleted after a deletion discussion. Thanks! (talk page stalker) --  Kethrus |talk to me  14:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Scotttappa12, to continue with Kethrus' line of reasoning: on the draft page it gives the staff numbers (irrelevant), departments and affiliations (everyone has 'em). The College also sponsors a Community Lecture Series and an Undergraduate Research Symposium, both of which many universities across the country run. Neither of these events seems to be of national or international regard, and thus you're simply left with a list of notable alumni, which could easily be added to the main University page.

As a side note, I haven't looked at all of the other College pages you linked, but the UoM page might actually be suitable for deletion. The existence of one page (good or bad) does not automatically mean that a similar page should be created. In truth, there are a few million articles and only a few thousand editors, so bad pages slip through all the time (and we try hard to ensure the bad ones get deleted). This means that every page is weighed on its own merits (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). Primefac (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for updating the user pages which were using this template for vanity characters. I would have done it myself but I wasn't sure if it was appropriate for me to "correct" other editors' pages for something essentially cosmetic. Thanks again.— TAnthony^Talk 20:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

TAnthony, no worries. To be honest, I thought you might have just not seen them (since using things like AWB sometimes only shows the article transclusions). When a template is being deleted, though, it's perfectly acceptable to modify all uses of it (even archives and the like) so that pages don't get broken. I'm just glad you did most of the gruntwork in figuring out the swap method; it certainly made my job easier for the ones you left! Primefac (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Primefac. I see that you were working on this draft -> article -> draft a while ago. It's been copied back to mainspace and changed quite a bit by a knowledgeable editor, but there were two drafts with very similar titles and overlapping timestamps, both created during the same minute. I have pasted the non-overlapping edits back together, but you may want to take a look at the resulting article in case some of your contributions didn't make it into the latest version. Sorry - I should have been more specific when I posted my request at WikiProject Genetics.—Anne Delong (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Anne Delong, it's been significantly improved, but thank you for bringing it to my attention. Most of my edits were simply removing things that weren't necessary in the article, so the fact that they didn't creep back in means the merge was done right! Primefac (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for moving the User:BXJ89/sandbox/Discovery and development of selective estrogen receptor modulators to Draft:Selective estrogen receptor modulators However, can I inquire why the title of the article was changed as there is already a page named: selective estrogen-receptor modulator? BXJ89 (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)BXJ89

BXJ89, as an addition to the comment I'll shortly be making on the draft itself, a page about SERM will undoubtedly talk about the discovery and development of the compounds. There is no point in having one page that talks about the discovery of a compound and another that talks about uses, and another that talks about something else. It makes more sense that everything should be on one page. Primefac (talk) 04:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Primefac You mentioned in the comments that you would like to see some of the draft trimmed down. Can you tell me which text in particular you'd like to see changed? BXJ89 (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)BXJ89

BXJ89, specifically? No. In general? Everything. Take for example the section on "Structural and mechanical differences between the SERMs." You go into entirely too much detail about the exact substrates and arrangement of the molecules. The point is not to list every variant/application of the molecules, but to give a general idea of what separates the first/second/third generations. If a reader wants to know more they can go to the references and read them directly. This happens throughout the draft, and makes it difficult to read, even for someone who has a background in biology/chemistry.

Now, I'm not saying to dumb it down to a third-grade reading level or anything (Wiki articles are allowed to be technical), I'm just saying that you don't need quite so much intricate detail. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Obamandrew (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Luyimbazi Nalukoola (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hello, I have been writing though not on Wikipedia, and o look forward to being part of the community, am much more interested in writing profiles, though but was wondering how slightly different does it turn out drawing a bold line between a brief biography and an article.

Obamandrew 18:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Obamandrew, the problem with your draft is that it is incredibly promotional. You have WEASEL words and FLOWERY language all over the place. Phrases like "...where he was a remarkable student..." and "...where he off course had to engage with individuals..." need to be removed or changed. Wikipedia is not a place for promotion, it is a place to neutrally report what information is available. You should also add more independent reliable sources that talk about Nalukoola in order to very the facts found in the body of the text. Primefac (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Please open the first reference as www.kapillavastu.com and check it, also 2nd refernce is a reliable Certificate issued by Indian Govt. UGC approved Yoga University S-VYASA.

Also the Chancellor Dr. H R Nagendra who issued the referenced certificate is the Yoga Consultant of India's Prime Minister Modi which I think should be a reliable source, see this link, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/world/asia/prime-minister-modis-yoga-consultant-hr-nagendra.html?_r=0

And the person in the Youtube video is the Director of the famous Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, which I think should be a reliable source, please see this link, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijay_P._Bhatkar

Thank you.

Sankhyā Karika (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Sankhyā Karika, I declined your draft because you had literally done nothing other than edit a URL. You had already commented on the first decliner's talk page, and received a message that you needed more references. Resubmitting with no changes (especially after being told how to improve the page) was a bad idea.

I nominated your page for deletion because it was directly copied from another website. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. You are welcome to re-create the draft using your own words, but it appears that the page already exists and so you should edit the Article instead. Primefac (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you or the first decliner did not even see the references properly even though I mentioned them again specifically. You guys are just following the wikipedia guidelines blindly and stopping the world from knowing the truth. Anyways, you keep on doing what you think is right, I will figure out other ways to reach the folks around the world. Cheers...!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sankhyā Karika (talk • contribs) 18:42, 4 November 2015‎ (UTC)

Sankhyā Karika, the presence or absence of references is (at this point) completely irrelevant to the fact that you directly copied another website. As I said above, you are welcome to recreate the page if and only if you write it in your own words. Primefac (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid this guy we have been trying to help is, shall we say, imaginative: FYI see here. Sigh... JohnCD (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. At least it sounds like an easy decline, should the pages ever get submitted. Primefac (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Regarding the creation of the Warner/Chappell Production Music page, I see that you commented that there is no reason to create a new page. Please let me assure that this is a completely different entity than Warner/Chappell Music. We are a separate production music company that only deals with production music and licensing for production music such as trailer music, news theme and custom music. Warner Music Group owns Warner/Chappell Music and Warner/Chappell Production Music as well as multiple other companies including but not limited to: Asylum Records, Atlantic Records, East West Records, Parlophone Records, Elektra Records, Fueled By Ramen Records, Nonesuch Records, Reprise Records, Rhino Records, Roadrunner Records, Rykodisc Records, Sire Records, Warner Bros. Records, Warner Music Nashville, and Word Records. All of these have their own separate wiki pages. It has also come to our attention that our competitors, FirstCom who is owned Universal Publishing Production Music, Killer Tracks owned by Universal Music Publishing Group, and Sony Pictures Television Inc. owned by Sony Pictures Entertainment, all have their own Wikipedia pages. There are multiple tiers under Warner/Chappell Music Group. Please visit http://www.wmg.com/ to confirm. Our company falls under the publishing tier. Warner Music Group owns three publishing companies, Warner/Chappell Music, Warner/Chappell Production Music, and Word Music Publishing. To legitimize this claim, allow us to give you a bit of history. As a company we began as multiple separate production music entities, 615 Music and Non-Stop Music, Groove Addicts and V-the production library. 615 Music was acquired by Warner/Chappell Music in 2010, and Non-Stop Music was acquired in 2009. We now go by Warner/Chappell Production Music, a combined company of the former multiple entities. This is a completely different business structure than Warner/Chappell Music. We create, market, and license a completely separate catalog of music, with over 300,000 tracks available worldwide to our clients via our own website and search site platform. We have employees working solely for us in the US, France, Germany and the UK. Below are links to our website that exemplify some of the differences. Please let us know what steps we need to take to legitimize our page. Thank you for your time regarding this matter.

http://www.warnerchappellpm.com/about-us/

http://www.warnerchappellpm.com/615-music/

http://www.warnerchappellpm.com/non-stop-music/ Ashleighann93 (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Ashleighann93, every piece of "evidence" I have been given to suggest that W/CPM is a different company than W/CM actually shows they anything but. Different divisions? Absolutely. Completely separate entities? Not a chance.

I highly suggest focusing on improving the existing Warner/Chappell Music page, as it needs a lot of cleanup. If the section on W/CPM gets huge and unruly, then (and only then) might it be possible to consider creating a separate article. Primefac (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Primefac for you suggestion. I will try my best design it beautifully.If i cant then Will you design it for me?Bivek bhattarai (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Bivek bhattarai, unfortunately I don't have the time to design your userpage, so I highly suggest asking at the Teahouse for assistance should you require it. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to comment on my talk page. -- GB fan 19:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

GB fan, I felt that I was overstepping my bounds by pointing out the draft; not quite a POINTY response but close enough to undo my edit. Primefac (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that was pointy at all, but it does matter how you see it. -- GB fan 19:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me on #IRC.

Jaydipmodhwadia52 (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I see you were merging infoboxes. Could you please fix the #if statements left in there and also subst {{PAGENAME}}. There's atleast ~80 articles such as Archenland. I also don't understand why "<!-- legacy information from merge.... " stuff was left in. Somebody else left atleast 150 articles with {{PAGENAME}} for American footballers. "John Doe (American football)" is not their name in the name parameter....sigh, I get to fix those too. Bgwhite (talk) 06:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Earth-Two is really messed up with broken brackets, #if and #expr tags. Bgwhite (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning things up. Bgwhite (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Subst does not work correctly when template name is followed by comment and editors should be double careful when performing a template substitution. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Primefac. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Demetriades.
Message added 09:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Request to revisit the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Primefac: Thank you for showing an interest in one of the articles which list episodes of the American astronomy TV series, "Star Gazers." Your contribution to the talk page for that article is appreciated. "Star Hustler"/"Star Gazer"/"Star Gazers" is a very long-running television program in the United States; and yet, people don't seem to appreciate the significance of it.Brianhass (talk) 08:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Um... Brianhass, which article? Where? I see no relevant talk page discussions that I could be a part of. Please be more specific when canvassing for opinions. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Although I've said most of what I needed to say at Opabinia regalis' talk page, there was more that I wanted to say but didn't think it appropriate to fill up that page. Firstly, we are under no obligation to use any template on any page and any template removed from a page doesn't have to be restored to the page simply because the template is under discussion. A template can be kept at TfD but it doesn't mean that we have to use the template at all. It is standard procedure in TV articles to use a raw episode count in the num_episodes field of {{Infobox television}} rather than to transclude it from somewhere else. This should be obvious by the fact that there were only 10 templates in Category:Episode count templates. One was deleted a few days ago and you closed a TfD as delete today, leaving only 8. Some of these templates were only recently created and only transcluded to a single article, which is quite obviously unnecessary. As I've already pointed out, Infobox television is used in over 36,000 articles so you should be able to understand that the use of these templates is incredibly unusual. It's also incredibly unnecessary. It is becoming more common to simply transclude the episode count from the main series article itself, which makes a lot more sense than creating a completely separate template just to do the same thing. The rest of the content in TV series articles is generally not transcluded anywhere so transcluding the episode count does not cause a problem. In any case, what I said earlier still stands: we are under no obligation to use any template on any page. Any template can be removed if it is not necessary, which is why I removed it from several pages, before deleting the then redundant templates for deletion. It's certainly not "shifty" editing to remove a template that is clearly redundant and I do take offence at you claiming that, especially as I alluded to the removal when I added to the nominations. Any template can be replaced if there is a better way of doing things and that is quite aside from the TfD. I therefore can't see your justification in restoring the templates under discussion to pages where they are clearly not needed. The TfD can still go ahead without restoration of the templates. Restoration seems aimed at preventing a demonstration that these templates are redundant, so it isn't constructive at all. Editors had started editing the main series articles in the same fashion used at 36,000 other articles and your restoration force them to change again and go back to doing things in a way that is not consistent with the rest of the project, which only leads to confusion. However, I won't claim that the restorations are vandalistic, even though I'm now going to have to address this at the Television Wikiproject. I have reverted your restorations of the unnecessary templates and would appreciate it if you don't edit-war over this. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

AussieLegend, my original comment on Opabinia regalis' page was subsequently amended (first indent) when I realized that you hadn't done quite as much as I thought. My apologies for originally not assuming good faith with your original changes. However, I was perfectly within my rights to revert your edits per BRD, with my main concern being that you had not waited until the TFD was concluded. I can see you want to do it your way, though, and I have no interest in starting a war. Since I have now !voted on the TFDs I won't be in any position to close them, so it will be up to another editor to resolve this. Primefac (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

As was explained above, despite existence of the template, we are under no obligation to use it. Restoring it to articles, as you've been doing, is at best unconstructive. The editors are having no problems editing the main article manually as we do for every other series. The TfD was closed with instructhions to discuss and, per the TfD closer's comments, I've opened a discussion at the TV project to discuss use of such templates. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Please cast your mind back to Draft:Larry Geller. I am having a rather one way conversation with the contributing editor right now, and I wondered what your previous experience with them was. You can see the discussion on my talk page. I am trying to help them, but, at present, they are not quite ready to be helped. Fiddle Faddle 19:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Timtrent, my only interaction with them was rather one-sided; I answered their AFC Helpdesk question. I think this a talking-to-a-wall situation where they cannot (or will not) understand how to do things properly. Not sure what else can be done other than continue to declinetheir drafts if they're not improved. Primefac (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll talk to the wall a while longer. As you can see, I am doing it n my terms, though. I am wondering whether I am meeting an editor on the Asperger spectrum, though, in view of the interactions and manufactured urgency. Wikipedia:High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors may apply Fiddle Faddle 20:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all your good work with templates, Primefac. I was going to dig up a kitten photo to use as a barnstar, but then I got lazy. Alakzi (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hehe, no worries Alakzi. Just glad I can help out. Primefac (talk) 04:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

In your recent relisting of TfDs for Template:San Jose State Spartans athletic director navbox and Template:Creighton Bluejays women's basketball coach navbox, you overlooked updating the link in the actual templates to point to the relocated discussion, per No. 4 at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Administrator instructions#Relisting. Don't worry, I updated them. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 07:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that Bagumba. I keep forgetting that step when I relist. Primefac (talk) 07:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I saw your close of the TfD and the G6, but the template seems to still be linked from multiple other templates, so it appears that a redirect or an AWB run to replace it with the appropriate link to the other template should be done before deletion, right? —SpacemanSpiff 13:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff, the template was being linked in {{Spaceflight navboxes}}, which is why it was popping up everywhere. I've removed those calls and so (even though it's now deleted) it isn't being linked from dozens of other templates. Primefac (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I need a delete on this page (not a redirect) so that I can move an article to this exact title; Susan Anderson (author) Can you help with this. See speedy delete.Wiki-psyc (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Wiki-psyc, I thought that I would expand upon my recent undo of your undo. There are two authors, and while they have small spelling differences in their name it is enough to have Susan Anderson (author) be a redirect to the DAB page (especially since they are both on it). If you wish to discuss this further, please do so on the original talk page. Primefac (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are understanding the dilemma here. I'd like to move the content of Susan Anderson (psychotherapist) to Susan Anderson (author). Susan Anderson is not a psychotherapist of any notability. I can't do that if Susan Anderson (author) is occupied as a redirect page. Are you saying that you disagree with this move or is there another reason for not deleting the page. Thanks in advance for the clarification. Wiki-psyc (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, read your editing note. I don't believe a discussion on the talk page will generate any participation so I'll abandon a rename. I'll just put the main article up for AfD and let uninvolved editors review it and decide if it's notable. Not a high priority in any case - just doing some clean-up. Wiki-psyc (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I was checking the publication date of the book, which turns out to be 1927, when you tagged it as copyright violation. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Howdy Primefac, I wanted to ask why the page Rushey Mead School has a COI and a refimprove tag considering I dont see any biased opinions and everything looks perfect?

Jaydipmodhwadia52 (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Jaydipmodhwadia52, in our conversation on IRC you said "my school and I patrol the page," hence the COI/"close connection" tags. That particular notice does not say it is not neutral, but that it might not be neutral (though given the edit that just happened on it to remove promotional text, I'd say "is not" is accurate). Second, there are entire paragraphs that are unreferenced, hence the refimprove tag. Primefac (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

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

It seems that this article has been existed that it overlaps the content of 'Cheung Chau' article. However, it is totally different that I specifically talk about the snacks in Cheung Chau,such as introducing how to make the snacks. And the snacks are special and you could not find elsewhere even the name of snacks are the same. It makes me confused about your opinion. I hope you could explain more about your statement and my article could be published.

Okay, Re-imaginigenglish, let's look at the sections:

• Mango mochi - pretty heavily covered at Daifuku, and I can't see how changing the filling makes it significantly different.
• Fish ball - this one might be worth having an article on, since I can't find a similar article to base it on. However, Wikipedia is not WikiHow, so you would need to be very careful not to make it simply a "how-to" guide. Also, the way you've worded it makes it sound like it is produced in other places. The only time you really should have a standalone article is if it is completely unique to a place, region, or country.
• Potato chips - they're fresh-made potato chips. I can guarantee Cheung Chau is not the only place that does this.
• Fried ice cream - you even state that it can be found in other places in Hong Kong, never mind the fact that your paragraphs are incredibly similar to the opening of the fried ice cream article.

As a side note, the tone of the draft reads more like a class assignment than an encyclopedia article - it is rather promotional and has a lot of WEASEL words and FLOWERY language. Primefac (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Primefac, I notice on October 31, 2015 you edited the Template shortcut: {{Explain}} and redirected it to: {{Elucidate}}. I am interested to know about this process as it was and is still in use by: {{Abbr}}. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax, the TfD regarding Elucidate determined that it was a better target for Explain than abbr. I went through and changed every instance where abbr should have been used instead of elucidate, so it is not still being used by abbr. Thank you, however, for pointing out that the redir notice hadn't been removed from the abbr doc (I've removed it). Primefac (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

That TfD was about a different topic than the redirecting of Explain. Question: How many pages were using the Explain shortcut as a pointer to Abbr? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax, fair point, the redirect target was only a mention in the discussion. To answer your question, there were approximately 100 using explain in place of elucidate, 100 in place of abbr, and about 50 which were actually better suited for {{which?}} or other similar templates. Regardless of where it was (or wasn't) pointing to, the mixed usage needed to be (and since has been) cleaned up. Primefac (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Primefac, sounds like a win/win. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Primefac. You have new messages at RB-ASHISH's talk page.
Message added 09:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RB-ASHISH talk 09:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow wikipedians, that is the thing as mentioned before my other classmates are going to add the womanist, chicana/latina theology and i am adding queer theology so the edits will not be finished yet. It is an ongoing process. can anyone explain how they can stop deleting my edits? Or what specifically can I add to make it relevant to the womens studies page. I think adding a queer perspective is important because womens studies also talks about queer perspectives which is not adressed at all in this page. Therefore adding it is important because it is taught within this field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaraiza1993 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the merging of infoboxes to create {{Infobox NFL biography}}. I'm not sure if "Current position" would be the best term to use, though, also due to the "Position" parameter below it. It also doesn't sound right for players who are retired to have a "Current position". Is there any other word you think could be used, instead? Zappa24Mati 23:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Primefac: Can you look at the related discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_NFL_biography#Question? I've reverted the merge in the interim while this is being discussed. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Primefac: Were you still planning to comment on this? It's OK if you have decided to move on, but a confirmation either way would be appreciated. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Bagumba, I spent a fair amount of time working on this merge, and to have it summarily disbanded and reverted over a few word choices was... unexpected. I plan on taking a day or two off so that I can re-approach the situation from a more level and rational POV. This merge has sat around for long enough and I'm not going to quit simply because the first attempt was shot down. That being said, a few more days of it sitting around won't hurt anyone... Primefac (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The merge is definitely long overdue, and your willingness to step forward is appreciated. I'm sure you are familiar with WP:BRD, so don't consider it a rebuke of your efforts. However, editors noticed some discrepancies after it went live, and legacy test cases have since identified a few more. As you mentioned, there is WP:NODEADLINE, so I made the decision to revert it back in the interim while the concerns are addressed. Another editor has already added to your changes to address some the issues. If you have another test suite that you used, editors at WP:NFL would be happy to look at them and assist with the testing. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

When a template that closed as delete at TfD should be deleted, you should add it to the holding cell rather than CSDing it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Jackmcbarn, out of curiosity, why? It's going to be deleted anyway, and I was told (in Opabinia regalis' post on my talk page) that CSDing it was more efficient since more people watch the CSD page than the TfD delete section. Primefac (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I see the template still exists, fortunately. But it has been unlinked from the articles it was originally posted by. 1) This was part of a series of disingenuous attacks on essentially most Philippine radio stations by one IP editor. When I called them on it, they have gone silent--not the markings of a serious nominator. I unraveled most of it and have sourced previously unsourced articles (claimed by the nom to be unsourcable), including the two affected by this template. 2) This is a severe problem with our system, I was obviously active with those articles exactly during the period of this TfD. There was NO NOTICE ON THE ARTICLES! How can we have a coherent discussion when there is no notice provided ON THE AFFECTED ARTICLES? Obviously we can't. Wholesale on every TfD. This needs to be fixed. Nobody knew about it, not that anyone else cares. You deleted based on one "me too" response following the disingenuous nominator. I suggest you remind your closure. At least I can post a Keep "vote" and this template will have a chance of survival. More importantly, we will not give a successful brownie point to a disingenuous nominator with an WP:AGENDA, hiding behind an IP. Trackinfo (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Trackinfo, the TfD notice was indeed closed in <noinclude> tags, meaning that no one was notified of the discussion, but I do not think that would have changed the outcome significantly (I seem to recall there were only two wikilinks). However, I will ping Opabinia regalis about this, as they have more experience than I do with these sorts of issues and can advise on the best way to proceed. Primefac (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: I just took a look at the template, and Primefac is right, there are only two blue links. In those cases we usually suggest linking the two articles in their respective text or see also sections. I've generally been userfying this kind of thing on request if there's reasonable expectation that the redlinks are notable topics and will be filled in. This template isn't particularly hard to reproduce, but let me know if you want a copy.

On the notifications thing, it looks like the radio stations project uses article alerts - see here - so if you watchlist that page you'll see TfD nominations. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not like a priority subject for me. I'm not tracking radio stations around the world. I started by noticing an incongruent statement in an AfD article "There are no sources" for a licensed radio station. I followed that rabbit hole to discover this IP trying to PROD a screen full of Philippine radio stations. Following WP:BEFORE I quickly discovered sources were available in radio listings and a government data file, plus most had other support articles. Essentially all of this activity by one IP was disingenuous. I sourced and de-PRODed the articles. This template was an outlier to all of this disingenuous activity. Maybe I should have gone deeper into this IP's history. I did give them a warning on their talk page and since then they haven't made an edit under that same IP. The point is, you are giving them a victory, and that is a bad precedent. To the specifics, this template had two blue entries, both under attack by this IP. It also had three other RED listings. I view that as potentially valid content. I could have probably created one or more of those articles, had it been necessary to satisfy the discussion, had I been a part of it. There is no visible history, were those already successful deletions? With the sources I found, wouldn't those be valid additions? I don't know, I can't check. You have wiped that entire piece of information away. Should someone, maybe whoever created the template or the radio station articles, return they will be met with the same absence of information and a warning telling them what they are about to create has already been deleted. Danger. Go away. While not WP:SALT in the wikilawyering sense, it works just as effectively. I view the deletion of valid content as detrimental to wikipedia. Maybe you are on the other side of the fence. I've never heard a rational argument for the opposing viewpoint. Trackinfo (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The IP geolocates to the Philippines and may well just be a local with an opinion, not a campaigner against specific articles. It's not about 'victory' and it doesn't matter why they nominated it; by common practice and consensus documented at WP:NAVBOX, we don't generally use navboxes for such a small number of articles. If you think the pink box warning about deleted content is too bitey, you could try proposing a rewording at the village pump. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• I noticed that you NAC'd this as "delete". Since when can a non-admin delete something? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 06:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Erpert, non-admins cannot delete anything, they can only close the discussions and put CSD tags on the template in question. You should see on the template page itself that it was deleted by RHaworth. Primefac (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Primefac. Do you know how to use AutoWikiBrowser (AWB) or one of the other semi-automated editing programs? I'm no expert, but I have used AWB to make several hundred replacements of identical text with new replacement text in a matter of minutes. Replacing template legacy parameter names would be no harder, but we need to settle on what the final parameter names will be. The first step would be adding alternate parameter names to Template:Infobox NFL coach from the corresponding parameters of Infobox NFL coach. The second step would be to run AWB to change the parameter names of Infobox NFL coach for the 340 articles that currently use Infobox NFL coach. The third step is to manually edit any parameter data to conform to the standard formatting of Infobox NFL player. The fourth step is run AWB again to change the name of all 340 transclusions of Infobox NFL coach to the merged template name (presumably, Infobox NFL biography). The fifth step is to manually review all 340 articles to make sure that the merge and manual data edits have been done properly. The idea is to fully utilize automated editing for as much repetitive replacement editing as possible. If we can recruit another 4 or 5 editors to help with the manual formatting of data (mostly team tenures, championships, awards and other highlights), we could be done with this in a week. That's my skeletal plan to implement the merge -- what do you think? (In the interests of time, I have copy-pasted this message from DeeJayK's talk page.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1, if I can get a list of parameters to change, I can have them knocked out in AWB in about two hours. I actually had an idea regarding the huge list of "past_team_X" params, which would simply be to combine them all into the one param used by NFL Bio, but that can be discussed further on the talk page. Overall, it sounds like a good plan, and it would be great to get this done in a week. Primefac (talk) 05:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Primefac, why don't you work with DeeJayK to generate a preliminary list of final parameters in someone's sandbox? The established naming patterns seem pretty straightforward so I doubt Bagumba and I will have many suggested changes to the list of parameter names you two come up with. I was prepared to do the AWB work myself, but I'm happy to have you do it; the parameter name changes should be straightforward text substitutions, and I'm guessing your time estimate is a pretty good one based on my past experience. You should be able to do all of them in a single pass. Having thought about it a little bit longer, we probably should preserve the unique template name until all other work is done; keeping "Infobox NFL coach" until all other work is done should make the 340 articles easier to track until we're done. I've already recruited Jweiss11, Wikioriginal-9, Yankees10 and Crash Underride to help with manual edits; we could still use another 3 or 4 editors who are competent and familiar with NFL/AFL history, championships, awards, etc., to help. Any suggestions? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments though you are a little late to the party since I also agree with the comments made by TitusFox and Happy Squirrel and have thanked them both for their comments, they are both correct in their stance and I agree with their approach. However, just so that you understand my position, I am a Chartered Building Consultant, a Chartered Building Engineer and a degree qualified building surveyor who also lectures at Coventry University, and have done so for the last 5 years. It is very easy to link your own comments to Wikipedia's own policies and I completely understand that and your drive to ensure that your excellent site remains factually true and academically verifiable. As an academic and lecturer, my own professional reputation rests on exactly the same principles. Yes, I have a professional opinion but to suggest that a contributor has a 'conflict of interest' because he cites his own professionally published and academically verifiable material is a little strange. I have studied rising damp in detail for a number of years and written a 20,000 word dissertation on the subject so if I have a conflict of interest, it is simply that I am in conflict with misinformation contained within this article. Incidentally, my amendments and corrections were posted in response to the fact that my own academically verifiable article was already cited within the reference material for this article. Rising Damp, an update for 2013 was written by me and has been republished by SAVA and on my own academic blog. Starting in February 2016, I am rolling out CPD training in damp across the UK for a number of Chartered professional organisations, including the CIOB, RICS and CABE. I maintain high ethical standards when it comes to my work and I only make comments that facts are 'true and academically verifiable' when the point is irrefutable and can be proven as such. My interest lies in correcting a number of incorrect points with regard to the academic understanding of rising damp. If you see that as a conflict of interest then that is rather a shame because it couldn't be further from the truth. You have mistakenly made the comment that I am the only one writing about this subject, but that isn't the case, but I appreciate that you simply do not have all the facts to hand at present. All facts were verified and academically referenced from other researchers as part of a dissertation on the subject and therefore verified by a well respected academic institution. I will work towards getting the amendments made in a manner that is acceptable to Wikipedia because from a purely academic stand point, these changes are important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitefriar66 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Primefac, I seek your advice. I believe I have consensus to merge Template:English dogs, Template:Scottish dogs and Template:Welsh dogs into Template:British dogs, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 28#Template:Scottish dogs. Leaving aside the ongoing debate about the inclusion of Template:Irish dogs, I would like to merge the first three but I do not want to act prematurely again. Would I be out of line to close debate and act on those three template?

Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Cavalryman V31, as the creator of the various TfDs, it would not be acceptable for you to close the discussions. Please be patient - the discussion is still open and there is NODEADLINE. Primefac (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your close on Template:Anthony Marinelli

I don't want to seem out of line, but could you point out where the idea that filmscore navboxes only belong in soundtrack album articles is justified? It appears to be only the opinion of a minority of interested editors. Filmscores and soundtrack albums can be similar but are hardly ever the same creative work -- generally, a soundtrack album is DJ'd music, not the filmscore. I don't see a policy, or guideline, and the previous RfC on the matter failed, currently only actor navboxes are unwanted.

Disclosure:I am the paid editor who created the navbox Thank you.009o9 (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

009o9, you are not out of line; it is perfectly acceptable to ask why a decision was made, if only because the closing notice has to be fairly brief and not all of the rationale can be thoroughly explained.

I should say first off that this has nothing to do with either the RfC or the existing policy that only actor navboxes are unwanted. There is no precedent for this type of deletion, so I made the decision based on the arguments made in the discussion itself. So in answer to your first question, there is nothing to point to (other than WP:NAVBOX).

I agree with you that soundtracks can be simply "inspired by" the film and not directly related to the composer, but in this instance the soundtracks are directly related to Marinelli. The fact that none of his soundtracks have their own articles is rather significant. As I mentioned in the close itself, templates like those for {{Hans Zimmer}} link to only soundtrack pages, which is why they are acceptable. If an author does not have Wiki articles about their books they would not get a navbox (and believe me, there are many of them). Why do the same for a composer who does not have articles for their soundtracks? This was the most compelling argument for deleting the navbox, especially since the category was created in order to keep track of these films (so as to not only be linked by the navbox).

Will this TfD be used in future discussions as a precedent? Maybe. Will this potentially re-start a debate about what sort of navboxes those involved with film could/should have? Probably. Could those discussions result in this template being undeleted? Not likely, but not impossible. At this particular moment, however, with this particular navbox, the deletion reasons were more significant than the keep reasons. Primefac (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

One of my arguments that you may have missed in the TfD, is that the MOS states that Soundtracks should be discussed in the film article, and in the current climate around here, soundtrack articles would likely be merged into the film article. I also state again, the terms Soundtrack and the Filmscore are not synonymous, we have two different articles explaining this. Only very rarely is the soundtrack and the filmscore the same creative work. As for your book example, the way I see it, the filmscore composer is a co-author of the film, evidenced in the copyright and royalties. So, the book example would preclude a notable co-author from having a navbox where article exist?

It actually stopped being about this template a long time ago and this close will be used as support for other template TfDs that are welcome under the guidelines as written. Considering the failure of the earlier RfC, and the fact that this will be (yet another) unpublished consensus, If I don't do something about the published guideline issue nobody will. I'm disappointed to have to be the one to go to RfC to clarify the guideline. Thanks for your response on this. 009o9 (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)