User talk:MSGJ/2018

Clarification request
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:ArbComOpenTasks/ClarificationAmendment&diff=820964942&oldid=820603089 shows a broken "Case" link. Did I file my request incorrectly? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've gone ahead and fixed the link. MSGJ, we appreciate your help here, and would ask that if you have an interest in helping update arbitration pages, that you apply to become an arbitration clerk. There's a general rule against non-clerks editing behind-the-scenes arbitration pages because they tend to be fairly specialized and because many clerk mistakes or oversights are actually the intentional result of discussion at clerks-l. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 04:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:League icon
Hi, just noticed you have an extra File: in your lest edit so it tries to render as - Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Arghh, sorry about that! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Personal attack
This is a personal attack. Thanks for that, by the way! It's nice to know when I'm dealing with editors who will sneak around talking shit behind my back instead of asking me questions, directly. ;) In the future, you should always speak to the user in question if you have concerns about their comments. Although to be fair, I'm not really willing to explain what was so silly about it to you at this point, so you can just keep assuming bad faith and doing your thang. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  04:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * When you apply for a user right you are explicity inviting administrators and other editors to comment on your suitability for that user right. Therefore my comment was entirely appropriate in the context of that page. I must say that your recent actions do not reflect well and I hope you are able to change that in future &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * First off, you could clearly see before you made your edit that the request had been denied, and that I'd accepted that in good faith. You knew when commenting there that your comment would not have any bearing on it, so your response here is pure bullshit.
 * Second, you said the comment gave you concerns, but the comment you linked to does not demonstrate any reason for that, nor do you explain any such reason, nor even explain what those concerns were. By definition, that's a personal attack, and as you are an admin you should damn well know this. When you accepted the bit, you agreed to know and understand our policies fully. If you cannot do so, then you should turn in your mop, and perhaps find another hobby, because we generally expect our editors to know and understand those policies, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Could you help format a cropped image?
I was looking through the Template:CSS image crop page and saw that you were the most recent person to edit it so I was wondering if you could help me with it? I have been trying to add a cropped picture to this page but it doesn't fit with the format of the gallery. Since you probably have better experience with the template, could you fix it? Thanks! ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to do that. Perhaps the best way is your you to download that picture, and crop it yourself and then re-upload with a new name (use c:Template:Derived from). Then use this image in the gallery. Hope this helps &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Page rename issue
Hi MSGJ, I tried to move Special Jury Priz (Venice Film Festival) to Special Jury Prize (Venice Film Festival) (spelling mistake) and I get a message that the page cannot be moved because it already exists. Actually the correct name links directly to the erroneous one. Also I see that someone has tried this in the past, but to no effect. Can you please check if the title can be corrected. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 09:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Hoverfish, Grand Jury Prize (Venice Film Festival) is an article at the correct spelling and has existed since 2008. I'm not sure why Special Jury Priz (Venice Film Festival) was created in 2015 but I suggest that any useful content from that article be merged into the proper article and then just redirecting it. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * When Cop 663 created the article in 2008, it started with the phrase: The Special Jury Prize is an award given at the Venice Film Festival..., and stayed so until 2016 when LuisaforSleepthief did a series of moves: 1. Special Jury Prize (Venice Film Festival) to Grand Jury Priz (Venice Film Festival), 2. Grand Jury Priz (Venice Film Festival) to Grand JuRy Prize (Venice Film Festival), and 3. Grand JuRy Prize (Venice Film Festival) to Grand Jury Prize (Venice Film festival)). From these moves I assume the original article name was "Special Jury Prize (Venice Film Festival)". Now, from the comment posted in Talk:Grand Jury Prize (Venice Film Festival), and further research, I assume that there had been only one Jury award up to 2013, named "Gran premio della giuria", as also the Italian article has it so since 2004, and in 2013 what happened was that a new award was defined as the "Premio speciale della giuria". As it also happened with the Cannes awards, both Jury award names got used in some instances in the past, before they were assigned their present specific roles. In any case I don't think that merging the Special Jury with the Grand Jury prize (and changing Template:Venice Film Festival accordingly) would be an uncontroversial move. Hoverfish Talk 13:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If they relate to two different awards then yes, this needs more discussion. As this is not a straightforward technical move then I don't think I can help. Perhaps just add your thoughts to that talk page and see if anyone else has an opinion? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Good idea, Martin. I start by placing the translation of the Italian (unsourced) article on the talk page for a possible sourced expansion of the main article. Cheers. Hoverfish Talk 20:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Baseball
Just mentioning that baseball is not basketball here. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure how that happened! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't actually talking about baseball, the page doesn't even exist. I was talking about basketball. They are totally different games. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am aware that they are different games. They also happen to have quite a lot of letters in common, which may or may not explain my confusion! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit War Warning
The edit war and personal attack warning message that you left is not at all appreciated. The user Lugnuts has been taking potshots for a long time and no action has been taken agaisnt him. In the past he has tried bullying but this time around I stood up to him.

So You can ban me but if you don't i wont stop attacking lugnuts if he crosses the line. (talk)
 * I have not seen any evidence of these bullying accusations, so I was not able to give them any credence. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thats why I mentioned that there is no point in expecting me to be able to follow the rules. --Ankurc.17 (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Saw your comment
Hello MSGJ. I just saw your comment here, after closing that AN3 case with a warning. Feel free to re-close in another manner if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. I was waiting for them to respond but I suspect they are lying low. I'll leave it with a warning for now. Cheers &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Substituted template
Template:Substituted template has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 02:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Blackscreen gadget
Hi, there is an issue with the blackscreen gadget, which I understand you recently edited. The VPT thread about it is here. DuncanHill (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment
Hello MSGJ. I noticed your recent edit where you indicated the OP had not signed the RfC he or she filed. For whatever reason, the instructions for starting RfCs allow signing with either 4 or 5 tildes. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Concur, I considered reverting that. I recently tried and failed to get the instructions changed to remove the five-tildes option for simplification. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Didn't know that! But I think it is natural for someone to want to know who posted the RfC, so I would support removing the 5-tilde option. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Happy reading. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

AutoAssessBot proposal
I recently made a proposal at Village pump (proposals) for a bot to add automatic assessments to article talk pages. It would check new or changed articles and add or update wikiproject templates showing the quality assessment from ORES. Based on feedback, I have started a more detail draft bot request at Bot requests/AutoAssessBot. I am not sure the suggested new parameter for WPBannerMeta is compatible / consistent / conflicting with existing parameters. Any comments or suggestions on any aspects of the proposal would be welcome. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of read and digest. I will have a think and write a response as soon as I am able. Thanks for letting me know &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks - no hurry. And please do not be polite. Maybe the whole idea is dumb. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:AfC submissions with discussion pages has been nominated for discussion
Category:AfC submissions with discussion pages, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:AfC submission discussion page
Template:AfC submission discussion page has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Legacypac (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox/generate
Template:Infobox/generate has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Copy
Hi, can you copy Draft:Hermie please? 79.67.85.1 (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom templates
Hey Martin, how've you been? Running into you at Wikipedia talk:IRC help disclaimer thanks so much, by the way! reminded me of the suggestions for improvement of casenav that you brought up a couple years ago. (It hasn't fallen off the to-do list... it's a long list....) Anyway, if you've got some time, I'd love to work with you on conforming those templates to the style guidelines for the rest of the project. Let me know if you'd like to discuss! Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 22:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Re:DYK error
Hey MSGJ-- thanks for the ping on Errors, looked at the diff to find your edit. What did the hook end up being changed to?  Nomader  ( talk ) 04:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I changed it to this. I guessed you were probably asleep at the time, but I don't think it was too controversial. By the way would a few extra tools be of interest to you? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep-- that's completely fine, thanks! As for the sysop stuff-- honestly? It was something that I was really thinking about going for awhile back, but I haven't really thought about it in the past few years. I'm definitely interested though after you bringing it up here. I'm worried that I haven't participated in WP:ANI and that I need to do some non-admin closures over at AfD, but would love to hear your thoughts on it and if you have any advice, I'm all ears.  Nomader  ( talk ) 19:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you would sail through, but I'll have a proper look through your contributions shortly. Not being active on ANI is a good trait. Participation in AfD is certainly important as it shows your understanding of various policies, but I don't think anyone would see closures as essential. I'll be back in touch &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Nomader  ( talk ) 19:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Liberal Democrat listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Liberal Democrat. Since you had some involvement with the Liberal Democrat redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. feminist (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

IA nomination
Hello MSGJ, I've nominated you for a temporary interface administrator access grant at Wikipedia_talk:Interface_administrators. If you do not wish to have this foisted upon you, feel free to remove yourself from the listing. Thank you, — xaosflux  Talk 02:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

interface administrator
Hi MSGJ, per Special:Diff/856641107, I have temporarily added the interface administrator user-right to your account. I'm sure the temporary part of that will change to permanent once we have a mechanism to agree it! WormTT(talk) 17:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Empty
Regarding this edit to Wharf Cable Television: Redirect category shell (i.e. where Template:This is a redirect redirects) should not be placed without parameters by experienced editors (see the large red notice on the parameter-less template itself or at Template:Redirect category shell/doc). R fully protected can be used instead to the same effect. I would normally just remedy the situation (I monitor CAT:MISCR) but I cannot do so unilaterally as the page is fully protected, so I thought it was worth a note here. Warm regards, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not very familiar with all the different parameters, but I knew someone would show up to advise me if I left it blank. What other parameters can be used in this case because I like the pretty box that Redirect category shell produces? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As Hong Kong Cable Television was formerly known as Wharf Cable Television, r from historic name works. There is a full list of rcats at WP:TMR. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 08:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay I've done that &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

File:TriMet icon.svg & Template:Rail-interchange
I see you made the change that requested. My concern is with who, where, and when the change of copyright status was made to the TriMet logo. I created File:TriMet logo simplified.svg in 2013 because, at that time, the logo was ©opyrighted. @Magog the Ogre you moved the file File:TriMet logo 2.svg to Commons; can you shed some light on the change from WP:NFCC? Useddenim (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC) 00:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * @Useddenim: which file did I delete? I don't know what you're referring to. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies; I cut ’n’ pasted the wrong user. Useddenim (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you know anything about the change of copyright status? Useddenim (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

George Galloway
Saw George Galloway pop up on my watchlist today, and was just curious why you removed the protection on the page? I specifically declined a request to lower the protection level and saw through one of the RfCs on talkpage to help edits still get through. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 23:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. I did not know that a request had been declined. I acted on a request on the article's talk page from an editor in good standing, which asserted that the dispute had been resolved. I hope things have calmed down and the lower protection will be adequate, but if you strongly believe that full protection is necessary then I won't argue about it. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:Italian provinces
Module:Italian provinces has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2018 September 26 & Template:WikiProject CD-People
Hello. Your deletion of Template:Wikipedia CD selection has resulted in Template:WikiProject CD-People showing up in Category:WikiProject banners with formatting errors. As you are likely more familiar with the situation, could you take a look? Thanks! JPG-GR (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the simplest answer was just to redirect it to the other template, which I have now done. Thanks for letting me know! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:REDNOT
Please stop using red-linked categories as tracking categories as here - you should not be making any edit that adds a red-link category per WP:REDNOT (the rules are different for red link categories vs articles) and it's incredibly disruptive for those trying to clear red links. If you need to add a tracking category then create it, and db-self it when you've finished. TIA. Le Deluge (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

TFD close
Just so you know, you closed this TFD discussion an entire day early. Just a thought, might be worth leaving discussions alone until they hit Templates for discussion/Old unclosed discussions. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Deletion process states that . However, I agree with Primefac that it should have been closed a day later as I don't think there was enough consensus to close so it early. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Will stop for now. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Module:Table row counter
Hey, MSGJ. Just coming here in regards to the above discussion started by. Was the intent to delete Module:Table row counter as well as Module:Gamelist counter? As far as I can tell from the discussion, it was only meant to be a merge of the Gamelist mod into the Table row mod, deleting the Gamelist mod and keeping the Table row mod.

In either case, Gamelist counter and Table row counter both need to be considered as well, as these were the templates that invoked those modules. Gamelist counter, at the very least, needs to be deleted, and there's 257 transclusions of Table row counter, so I believe the module should be reinstated. Cheers. --  Alex TW 02:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You are correct about my intentions when I nominated, which was a merge of one module into the other. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I monitor Category:ParserFunction errors. It normally lists no articles (that was true 24 hours ago). Currently it lists over 170 articles. I believe that is due to the deletion of Module:Table row counter per Templates for discussion/Log/2018 October 8. Please try restoring the module and purging an article or two to confirm that the module is required. If my belief is confirmed, whoever wants the module deleted should fix the problems first. Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry everyone. I was intending to delete Module:Gamelist counter but of course not Module:Table row counter, which is now restored. AlexTheWhovian: I think you're correct about Gamelist counter. I will look into that shortly. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Categories empty post TfD
could you delete Category:2018 Asian Games sepak takraw group standings templates and Category:2018 Asian Games sepak takraw convenience templates and Category:2018 Asian Games sepak takraw templates per Templates for discussion/Log/2018 October 16? thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Who can do this merge in Lua?
--Gryllida (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like has started the work &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Italian comune sandbox
It seems that your edits in Template:Infobox Italian comune/sandbox weren't promoted. I want to use the sandbox (in a few days) to fix the short description (see Template talk:Infobox Italian comune). Would it be OK to overwrite your changes, at least temporarily? David Brooks (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Never mind. An actual expert has pointed out that the existing coding is correct for the infobox itself; the short description needs to be fixed over at Infobox settlement. David Brooks (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It turns out that infobox settlement (probably) can't handle this case, so I have reverted the infoxbox Italian comune sandbox to test a fix. Your changes are still in its history, of course. But I think if you want to resurrect them, they may have an impact on my change, which uses the "region" parameter. Let me know if you want to work on this. David Brooks (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Interface Edit Requests - Bot Table
Hello MSGJ, as an interface administrator I wanted to let you know that there are two pages you should consider watch-listing: Interface administrators' noticeboard and User:AnomieBOT/IPERTable. The later is a bot-generated table of all outstanding interface edit requests that you may be able to handle. Thank you for your continuing support of Wikipedia! — xaosflux  Talk 14:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Module:Navbox United States
could you delete Module:Navbox United States per db-g8 for Template:Navbox United States? thank you. Frietjes (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Infobox school merger
Hi Martin, I was wondering when you have the time, if you could do those minor changes for the trust, local_authority and urn parameters which you can see on the talk page. Please let me know, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing those changes, there is a strange problem, established (correctly displayed in the infobox) seems to also be appearing right at the top on Template:Infobox school, best if you check it out, thank you :) Steven (Editor) (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Maths rating/tableimage
Template:Maths rating/tableimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Qui1che
Wanted to make sure you were aware of this WP:CANVASing. ,, , ,. It seems this user is hellbent on making sure this merger doesn't happen... -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Main Page/sandbox
Better to test stuff there first (I stumbled upon a red link on the Main Page...) in the midsts of your edits. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Rivers
Heyo. So I'm testing a new idea at Template:Infobox river/sandbox2. See Template:Infobox river/testcases for the result. So far I have mixed feelings about it. BUT it did give me an idea. For the killer subtemplates you made (Template:Infobox river/discharge & Template:Infobox river/source) what about making those have the  and then giving them. I think that will look killer. I'd love to test that out so let me know if you have any thoughts? -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * With the reduced line spacing? Yep, looks good, but please discuss at the relevant talk page not here. (Might be good to reduce line spacing in other areas too.) By the way I was surprised to see you made my sandbox code live as it was nowhere near ready and not yet properly tested. But if you are taking responsibility for it, then fine I guess. Sorry I have had no time to finish my work there yet. Hopefully we can finish the job soon. Sorry I don't know the effect of  and   so can't comment on that yet &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll take the talk back to the talk page. The way I saw it, what you had done so far was a MAJOR improvement on the current version of the template. I didn't see any reason to wait to take it live. I know there is still work to do and 100% support continuing the work... -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

TfD closure POTUS and VP templates
You closed the October 6 TfD re POTUS and VP templates. Obviously, you honoured the argument "Single-use template" (mentioned twice) decisively, seeing your subsequent subst-edits.

First I'd want to ask you where this "no single-use"-rule is written. I cannot find it (any more?). As it is now, I am doubtful on whether this is a sensible rule, as the other contributor simpy stated in their first post there -- not coincidentally an editor who actually works with this template. -DePiep (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen it written as a rule but single-use is a common argument at templates for discussion. I think the important question here is whether single-use applies when the same template or subtemplate is used many times in the same page. I have not seen this called single-use before. Some of the deleted template pages were only used once but some were used dozens or hundreds of times. Their large output had to be placed numerous times in the article source where it now has to be maintained separately. I think the only reason for the single-use argument is that the code may as well be substituted if it's only used once, meaning that the normal advantage of templates is irrelevant. A possibility would be to relist the discussion and mention an option to only delete those template pages which are used once. This would move around 140 calls of the row templates into the article instead of the current 310 kB table code (which could be reduced but would remain enormous). Row templates are common and recommended by Help:Table. There were only three participants in the discussion and two of them may not have realized the consequences. I think a relisting with more input would be good. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am here to learn from MSGJ where that rule was written or perceived. Thank you. -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Well that was a messy template substitution to be sure. When tried to do it, the page went to more than 2MB, which he wisely reverted. I will respond to your questions shortly &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure what the best answer is here. I have been half-following the discussion at Talk:Living presidents and vice presidents of the United States so have been anticipating being contacted. My initial comments are as follows: &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I recognise that the current version of the article is harder to maintain than the previous version.
 * "Single use template" is not a policy-based reason for deletion. I queried this a few weeks ago actually at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace but did not get much response. People who commonly quote this as a deletion rationale are presumably arguing that such a template can be substituted and the result will be simpler and easier to maintain as the article can be edited directly.
 * When closing the TfD I did not anticipate the difficulty that substitution would present.
 * As was pointed out on the TfD this is just a static table and there is no need for all that template and subtemplate infrastructure. A table row template is certainly reasonable but as himself admitted there was much over complication.
 * I'm open to relisting it if you think it will reach a more informed outcome.
 * Moot by now. Disappointing. Each and every sub-argument you mention here has been refuted by actual practice. The main point, "single use so delete", you have not addressed here nor in the closure (what you wrote here reads like an afterthought, not the closing considerations).
 * So we will need an other such problematic process before we finally get this figment "single use ..." rule kicked out. A pity you did not help this time. - DePiep (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait wait. Oct 7 you closed the TfD. Oct 16 you re informally wrote this at the talkpage. Oct 18 you started this at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace. Nov 12 you replied, to a DRV-pointed post evading the issue ("half-followed", really?).
 * MSGJ, to me this smells. You knew very well something was about that one-use-rule, but you evaded the point in face, while you worked with it elsewhere. On top of that: you engaged in the troubelsome result article (horrible after TfD result agree), by splitting it without consult (knowingly defying consensus talk -- including the TfD'ed table). I skip some other details issues here, & editor's energy lost. (thanks for the link). MSGJ, I do not remember this behaviour from you before. Should I really have second thoughts next time we meet? Something going on? -DePiep (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , let's WP:AGF here. And for the record, I found the link several days ago in an edit by . Just today, it occurred to me to advertise that discussion a bit more broadly, and so I put a notice at WP:Village pump and at WT:ELEM, which I presume is where you saw it.
 * My read on this is that MSGJ was following an informal precedent at TfD, and realized that WP as a whole would be better if this informal precedent at TfD were clarified. That is a good thing. As far as dividing the articles, yes, we had a consensus last year, but MSGJ not being aware of it, edited WP:BB-ly. None of the pagewatchers - including me - felt strongly enough about it to WP:BRD, though by rights we could have. I am hopeful that the discussion initiated will yield a clearer statement about when (if ever) single use templates are OK and when (if ever) they are forbidden. That will be a good result, and will save us all a lot of grief in the future. YBG (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes AGF is as I wrote it. But also: MSGJ actually making contradicting and confusing posts. I was not checking MSGJ of course -- I was disappointed that this nonsense rule was applied by a closing adming (as I write bit earlier before on this page, i.e. before). Then it appeasrs admin played innocence in engagement, and also was researching an other road (i.e., knowing the core issue very very well). -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggested a relisting and still support that. Thanks for considering it. I don't consider it moot at all when the templates or subtemplates may be kept in a relisting with more input, and more awareness of the consequences of deletion. Whether or not the article is split, a keep result in a TfD relisting will make it far easier to maintain the tables. Template deletion and article splitting are very different processes which are done and undone in different ways. I don't think the two issues should be discussed together but if the templates are kept then the source size will decrease hugely and this may influence how some editors view a split. Single-use is a common and often accepted argument at TfD, usually with no opposes I think, but TfD generally has low participation. A TfD archive search on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22single-use%22&prefix=Wikipedia%3ATemplates+for+d&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&fulltext=1 "single-use"] gives hundreds of hits but I have only examined a few. I maintain that the key point here is that whether or not single-use is generally considered a valid argument, it should not be applied to templates or subtemplates with many transclusions on the same page. I think this TfD would be a poor test case for a general discussion of single-use where templates usually only have to be substituted once if they are deleted. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * PrimeHunter: the reason it may be moot is nothing to do with the splitting of the article but that yesterday User:Drdpw applied a vastly simplified version of the table with little reliance on templates. This version seems to be supported by all. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It was used on Living presidents of the United States before my post but Living vice presidents of the United States afterwards. It vastly simplifies the substituted templates but the code for every row is still several times larger than the old row template call. This:


 * was replaced with this:


 * The new look of the tables could still be implemented by modifying the old row templates so the same formatting code does not have to be maintained in 89 separate rows of the same table. MSGJ or others may consider it a violation of the current TfD close if new row templates or similar are created with different code but same purpose as the old ones. If the TfD result is changed to keep then nothing would prevent editors from agreeing on replacing or recoding the row templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * says 's version seems to be supported by all. I believe everyone supports it as being an improvement over the result of the TfD because it is easier to maintain than the result of the substitition. There are many changes in formatting which I expect fell into two categories (1) improvements in visual appearance and (2) compromises in visual appearance made to avoid over-complicating the no-template implementation. In a template implementation, (1) can be adopted and (2) can be eliminated.
 * says some may consider it a violation of the current TfD close if new row templates or similar are created with different code but same purpose as the old ones. This is only true if the new template is intended to be used for a single page only. A template designed to be used on multiple pages would not violate the TfD close because the only reason cited by that close was "single use".
 * One of the reasons I did not oppose the article split is that it makes it easier to facilitate the re-implementation of a template system without requiring either the creation of a new list (e.g., for Australian PMs) or the modification of the style of an existing list (e.g., for the PMs of New Zealand, Sweden, or the United Kingdom). I am working on a userspace draft and am close to being ready to bring it here for discussion. YBG (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops, I though I was writing at Talk:Living presidents of the United States, not on a user talk page. The announcement of my userspace draft will occur there, not here. YBG (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * One of the consequences of the deletion is that by recreating the row-building from ~scratch (by itself an honourable job by, actually screaming for a reusable generic row-template, which has three(!) elements of the deletion question: recreation after TfD, deletion of a reused (sub-)template, ease of maintenance), the development history of the TfD'ed templates is deleted (including attribution, User:YBG foremost IIRC) and so the argumentation and discussion. For example, color choice was fleshed out, but had to restart with a 'trust us, they were carefully chosen'. Alltogether a mess, that would have been prevented had the closing editor generously reverted the deletion when discovering the issue quite early. -DePiep (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has gone off into many directions, but I would like to come back to what I think is the main point, namely, a request to reconsider the TfD close. I would propose that it be reopened for two reasons (1) to include our now better understanding of the consequences of deletion and (2) to get participation by more than three parties. MSGJ, are you be willing to re-open that TfD? YBG (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Even better: I strongly suggest not reopening, but plain reversal by the closer, per WP:DRVPURPOSE. I have not read an argument, not even by MSGJ, why the deletion was a good idea after all. Relisting would only cause us to repeat all arguments brought up after closure (and clearly received & read by MSGJ). While MSGJ is invited to recognise the problems & thoughs raised, and admit the closure should be reverted. They have the right to. -DePiep (talk) 14:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the templates should be kept but reclosing Templates for discussion/Log/2018 October 6 as keep without new input at TfD may be controversial. That's why I suggested relisting. Either is fine by me. There is currently uncertainty about how or whether the deleted templates will be used if they are kept but in any case I prefer the close does not stand. A keep gives freedom for editors, and old deletion discussions are often cited as precedent. I don't like a possible precedent that templates transcluded many times in the same page can be deleted as single-use. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "controversial" I do not see, but could be. Core point is that the closing editor makes a step forward. (After restoring all some cleaup & improve works can be carried out, which is regular maintenence not a TfD argument IMO). -DePiep (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not think it would be wise to change the result from "delete" to "keep", that would be controversial indeed. Changing it from "delete" to "no consensus" seems a better decision. I don't have a strong opinion between (a) changing the close to "no consensus" or (b) re-opening the same or a new TfD. YBG (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Break
I agree that changing the result from delete to keep would be misleading and controversial indeed because the templates were deleted as a result of that discussion. From reading comments, it appears that, especially with the new version of the tables now implemented on the articles, no one desperately wants those old templates restored. But instead they are worried about setting precedent with the "single use" deletion rationale and possible misuse of that precedent in future. I would neither expect nor intended to set any kind of precedent, but I appreciate the concern and I offer to do either of the following: &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Add a note to my close to point out that some of the subtemplates were called multiple times on that single article, so strictly speaking they were not "single use". And also that any future templates created for these articles would not qualify for G4 if they were called more than once.
 * 2) Reopen the discussion, if this is deemed necessary.
 * 1. Thank you, Martin. I appreciate that your offer to explicitly state that G4 would not apply. I am working on a userspace draft of a redesigned template system that would be usable on multiple pages, not only the living presidents and vice presidents of the US, but also on the living prime ministers of New Zealand, Sweden and the UK, and am glad of the opportunity to move that into main space with someone complaining of G4. If I did not have that in the works, I would ask for a full WP:REFUND and total restoration to the status quo ante. YBG (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * re MSGJ. Thanks for diving into this. One worry though. The additional note would be about the reused, and reinstated in some form, subtemplate. That is fine and I think everybody can agree with (while YBG or others might ask for REFUND for attrribution and discussion history). However. It appears that you will not explicitly reject the "single use so delete" argument, that deleted the two main templates in the first place (and that was not applicable to the reused row-templates at all, now being corrected). It is that precedent I would like to get rid of. While maintaining dozens of templates myself, I run the risk of having to defend again and again any single-use any moment. In the future, your fellow closing admins might fall again for this figment rule. So if needed to settle this, reopening might be a solution to actually kill the precedent. Also possible: you could add this as another closing note (with #1 above), admitting the "rule" does not exist nor apply; or you could agree to advise full DRV and have others taking a look. Again, not to actually reinstall the templates but to settle the argument. -DePiep (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Here we go again. -DePiep (talk) 01:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I have now added a comment to my close. I hope this satisfies most people and avoids having to reopen the discussion. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Modules
You forgot to delete Module:Linkless/testcases when you deleted Module:Linkless back in October. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)