User talk:Primefac

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49: 15 days

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]