User talk:JPG-GR/Archive 12

We have removed the colored title bar from the template because there were numerous edit wars on what color should represent a Ranger, particularly with Tommy Oliver, Adam Park, and T.J. Johnson. So, I decided to replace the colored title bar with {{color box}}es representing each color, that way we can represent each color equally. Also, I decided the template should use standard infobox formatting to simplify syntax. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 03:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You broke multiple pages in the process and I see no evidence of a "we" at work - just you. JPG-GR (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr JPG,

I am not very good at this talk feature, so please forgive my confusion. The Resnick Pocketbook and Handbag Family are notable. If you visit http://bagladyemporium.com/BLU/index.php and http://bagladyemporium.com/BLU/index.php?n=Main%2FSearchWiki&q=resnick, you will find many references to the Resnick family and their relatives.

Quite simply, the Resnicks were a notable manufacturer of ladies pocketbooks during most of the 20th century and revolutionized the industry with their manufacturing processes and affordable products. You can still find bags from Julius Resnick (one of the many Resnicks) on eBay. You can also find news clippings in the New York Times and Florida archives. The family was a leading manufacturer from the 1920's to the 1980's.

Although I am related, I never worked for the family. I merely wanted to highlight their contribution to American manufacturing and ladies handbags.

Please reconsider restoring this page.

Thank you,

Marc Resnick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcrez (talk • contribs) 03:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dude, haven't seen ya around in awhile. Hope all is well. If you need anything done in the radio stations in Michigan area that you keep an eye on, please let me know. Take Care and Have a Good Weekend...NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Been keeping rather busy in the real world and in the non-Wikipedia online world. All is ok, if not overworked. I still check my watchlist every day or two, but I don't keep all the Michigan stations on my radar anymore. Take care. JPG-GR (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. JPG-GR,

I noticed you deleted the page of Ashly Covington because she failed the GNG. However, I am finding lots of third-party citations of her as a leading female hand model. She's popping up everywhere -- CNN, Newsweek, etc.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/personal/08/10/hand.modeling/index.html#cnnSTCPhoto

http://www.thebigmoney.com/slideshow/faces-behind-famous-hands

http://www.newsweek.com/id/227011

Please reconsider restoring her page.

Alan Greer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan greer (talk • contribs) 21:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You have deleted a page I have just created for "advertising". Can you tell me the reason why you judge that it was advertising ? Is it due to the photos ? To the lack of text ? I'll recreate the page without the photos and with more text, I hope it won't be considered like advertising. I just want to inform about the existence and the activity of my company. Best regards. Thepage (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is to inform you that a template that you requested be deleted and was in fact deleted has been recreated by a retired Wikipedia user I am not going to reveal. He felt however, that an un-retired tag was a useful device notwithstanding the discussion in favor of its deletion. I'd also not only a few participated in the discussion so it cannot be held that a majority of editors and administrators take your position. The recreated template is in the title above.68.236.155.129 (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:un-retired

Couldn't find the TfD discussion, maybe you can link it to the new TfD discussion I started here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment here. MisterE2123Five3 (talk) 07:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting that Template:Information needed be re-uploaded per the discussion never reaching a consensus because the opposing party never responded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_October_25&oldid=248013842

Spitfire19 (Talk) 01:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know WP:TIND but I would like some feedback as soon as possible. Spitfire19 (Talk) 21:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you need to look back at the template it can be found as my most recent edit to Template:X7 Spitfire19 (Talk) 15:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that since you closed the TFD for {{Expand}}, I have formed a DRV. You can find it here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. JPG-GR (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you closed this, but it has now been recreated. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure if it's a problem, but I thought you might want to know that after you closed this, I went through and replaced the citations with {{cite doi}}, thinking that was the closest alternative. I'm not sure if {{cite doi}} was the crux of the problem or if it was something else, but my changes were partially reverted. I have subsequently tried again here, this time not using {{cite doi}}. The strange thing is that the reverts of my edits basically removed the references since the subtemplates were deleted along with {{source list}}. In any event, just thought you might be interested. For more threads see here and here. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need some technical support on the above listed template. I am using the template on the WMRA#Network_stations page and on one section it is not listing the HAAT even though the information is in the field, instead it gives {{{haat55}}}. I and another user have tried to fix this over a few months or so, but haven't succeded. Since you are the creator of the template, perhaps you could help. Hope all is well in your neck of the woods. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Radiojon broke it in this edit: [1]. It's fixed now and should propogate to that page momentarily. JPG-GR (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already fixed on the WMRA page. Thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the MOS:JP talk page, a discussion has been started about including or not including romanizations for words of English origin, such as Fainaru Fantajī in Final Fantasy (ファイナルファンタジー, Fainaru Fantajī) (for the sake of simplicity, I called this case "words of English origin", more information on semantics here).

Over the course of a month, it has become apparent that both the parties proposing to include or not include those romanizations cannot be convinced by the arguments or guidelines brought up by the other side. Therefore, a compromise is trying to be found that will satisfy both parties. One suggestion on a compromise has been given already, but it has not found unanimous agreement, so additional compromises are encouraged to be suggested.

One universally accepted point was to bring more users from the affected projects in to help achieve consensus, and you were one of those selected in the process.

What this invitation is:

• You should give feedback on the first suggested compromise and are highly encouraged to provide other solutions.

What this invitation is not:

• This is not a vote on including or excluding such romanizations.
• This is not a vote on compromises either.

It would be highly appreciated if you came over to the MOS:JP talk page and helped find a solution. Thank you in advance. Prime Blue (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not stupid, JPG! :-) Thanks for working on the TfD backlog. --Bsherr (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least I didn't delete the Main Page. ;) JPG-GR (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! --Bsherr (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for reversing an action of yours without discussing it first, but I decided to undelete this template as it transcluded by thousands of user talk pages and still in use by many warning templates [2]. The deletion of the template caused all of these talk pages to have an odd looking red link in them, so I restored the template. While it may be a useless template (I'm not entirely sure how it originally worked), I thought its breakage of so many pages was a bad thing. Perhaps a bot can be sent out to delete all of the transclusions and then the template be deleted? I don't hang out in TFD very often, so again, my apologies if I overstepped normal practice. I left the TfD notice on the template as I wasn't quite sure what to do with it in this case. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected it procedurally. It's in the TfD holding cell listed under to orphan. When orphaning is complete, it can be deleted. And indeed I hope a bot can do it. --Bsherr (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insomnia + TfD = Bad. JPG-GR (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have SporkBot working on it, but it may take a couple weeks if the 190k transclusion count is correct. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How long I have to wait in order to merge this template with Template:Wildlife of India. Three people have voted to merge, including the creator. Why are we waiting? Farjad0322 (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the President of TfD. It will get closed when someone closes it. JPG-GR (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you are the one who deleted the template Template:Override which I used and came in handy with stylizing the username on a User page. Why was it deleted? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(TPS) See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 June 16#Template:Title override. If you want the code from it, let me know. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. And as for the code, sure. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will post it on your talk page. It's basically one line, and reportedly doesn't work well if you change to a different "skin" or different browser, so not everyone will see the same thing. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to create an "Assessment Chart" similar to the one seen here and at other WikiProjects for WPRS and host it in WP:WPRS space and transclude it onto the WP:WPRS's front page? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Said page already exists: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Radio station articles by quality statistics. JPG-GR (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks! I will add it to the main WP:WPRS page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comments at the TfD I'm not so sure that "delete" was the right outcome of that discussion. The template was tagged as a TfM [3], and comments other than my own seemed to be in favour of a merge rather than a delete. Perhaps you could reconsider, or at least rationalise your closing decision? In any case, I trust that the talk pages will at least be preserved as per the discussion? PC78 (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I 've been running recently updates to Infoboxes, I can help with merging Infobox actor with Infobox person as soon as I get specific instructions of how to do it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change all parameters to be the same with Infobox person. This will be benefitial for RjwilmsiBot too. RjwilmsiBot adds persondata in biography articles based on info found in Infoboxes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the process here regarding a merge? I can set things in motion myself if need be, but I don't want to tread on anyone's toes if it is already being dealt with. PC78 (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. I don't need any help, at least for the first step. I won't perform any real merge. I am just taking sure that (almost) all parameters of Infobox actor are the same with Infobox person. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can help me do the following replacements:

• location -> birth_place (This is the most important one, since location isn't used only in infoboxes for persons)
• birthplace -> birth_place
• birthdte -> birth_date
• deathplace -> death_place
• deathdte -> death_date
• yearsactive -> years_active

-- Magioladitis (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more along the lines of making changes to {{Infobox person}} that would allow {{Infobox actor}} to be redirected. PC78 (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. User:Plastikspork changed the code so it allows substing. Check my talk page and express your opinion there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because you participated in a previous discussion on the subject, I'm letting you know that a discussion has started about opneing a Request for Comments concerning "Bronx" versus "The Bronx" as the article title. You can find it here Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, when did I participate in this "previous discussion"? JPG-GR (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm writing concerning the following URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CyberDefender. I'm a representative of the company, and we'd like to see the aforementioned page undeleted. We do have representation at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberdefender_corp, but that is in regard to our Corporation, and not our brand. Any and all assistance/information in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Hi,

I understand KJFK is the official callsign of that radio station, but, KFJK is the official ICAO code for John F. Kennedy International Airport. 99% of people who type in KJFK are looking for the airport, not the radio station. (The Radio station page gets around 25 views per day, where as the airport gets around 2,000 views per day. We should tend to the larger crowd. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 11:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the airport may be the more popular of radio station vs. airport, the radio station is likely more popular of acronym vs. acronym. Comparing the former is apples to oranges. JPG-GR (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I think all radio stations should either be titled Radio: XXXX or XXXX-FM/AM. Just my ideas. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be completely against naming conventions and precedent. JPG-GR (talk) 03:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain why you undid my redirect of The Ballad of Gordon? I explained quite clearly why it's not a notable song and should be redirected per WP:NSONGS. Apparently nobody wants me to redirect anything anymore. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they just don't want you going around, blanking things on a whim... JPG-GR (talk) 06:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's because of the CSI and House episodes isn't it. Something like that, and all of a sudden I can't redirect anything anymore. The article could've consisted of total gibberish and you'd still undo the redirect. Yeah, that's REAL good faith. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about what you are referring to. Apparently, you must have multiple people telling you that you are doing something wrong, and you're comments here imply that you even suspect it yourself. JPG-GR (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, thanks for the good faith assumption that implies I'm inept. JPG-GR (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your "blanking things on a whim" comment was in reference to the fact that I got bitten for redirecting a ton of CSI and House episodes. Tell me how you think The Ballad of Gordon doesn't warrant a redirect — there isn't a single source in the article, and I couldn't verify one iota of the info contained therein. Per WP:NSONGS, it should be redirected, case closed. Is that so hard? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why, a redirect just seems like burying something one doesn't want to be seen. Leave it in the open (do nothing) or bring it in the open and shoot it (WP:AFD). Personal views, I suppose. Hadn't seen WP:NSONGS before. *shrug* JPG-GR (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I performed the initial steps by converting the backend of the template, and adding the min/max elevation ranks to the parent template. It appears as though the next step is to substitute it, but I personally would not be opposed to leaving it as a wrapper for {{Infobox commune}}, but substitution would work as well. It calls some other templates for the elevation, population, mayor, and area data, which allows for these data to be updated in a central location. Let me know if you have any comments. It's better to work out problems now, rather than after it has been substituted. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I always prefer the wrapper option. JPG-GR (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then maybe leave it as a wrapper and see if anyone pushes for substitution. I believe Blofeld's main interest was in the outward appearance. I will check with the others who commented in the TFD to see if there is any reason to go any further. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be rude or anything, but could you get your ass over here, please?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but it seems silly to pile on against you. JPG-GR (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did the result I think happened just happen? JPG-GR (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of sometime today, October 16, Recnet will go offline in their service of providing coverage area charts and information. This is due to a move in location for Recnet. When Recnet goes offline the {{RecnetCanada}} template will link to pages that don't (at that moment) exist or work. Is it possible until Recnet comes back online, sometime between November 1 and November 5, "remove" the templates from all the Canadian radio station pages via coding? Not like commenting out (that would take too long), but a code to the {{RecnetCanada}} template to make the template "disappear" from all the Canadian radio station pages until Recnet comes back online. If this can be done, feel free to do it immediately as there is not time on when Recnet will go offline today, just "today". I will keep an eye on the site and let you know when it is back online so you can make the {{RecnetCanada}} template "re-appear". Thanks....Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a link to the info about this outage to put in an edit summary, and I'll take care of it. JPG-GR (talk) 06:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the link about the outage. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. JPG-GR (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually forgot I asked you to do this. Brain went bye-bye. Thanks for taking care of that. :) I will keep an eye on the site and let you know when it comes back online. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JPR, since you edited the page, would you mind moving User:Neutralhomer/WPRZ-FM to WPRZ-FM? It was previously there but moved to userspace cause the station wasn't on the air yet...it is now though per this. If you can move it back, I would appreciate it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, gladly, except you gave me two red links... JPG-GR (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected the first red link (don't edit after 5am), the second is red cause that is where the page needs to go. Let me know if I made anymore goofs. Editing while half asleep can cause problems, as you seen. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. JPG-GR (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank ya, Sir. Much appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the reason you reverted my move of the WMSC article to "WMSC (radio station)"? In the comments I explained the reason: WMSC station has a dubious merit to compete for being a main "WMSC" article, since it has a relatively local (geography-wise) significance. For example, World Motor Sport Council is known to more people in the world, and has a truly global coverage. But I tried to avoid making a subjective decision as to what article should be main by re-directing WMSC to point to a disambiguation page. Please explain your reasons for reverting.cherkash (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, your argument of the radio station being less notable than this group is dubious as you provide no evidence (never heard of the group). Secondly, if your argument is that neither is more notable (a reasonable argument), WMSC should be the dab page, not a redirect to one. Finally, following precedent, the proper location of the radio station article would be WMSC (FM), not WMSC (radio station). JPG-GR (talk) 06:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I would agree with making WMSC a dab page. To address your point about a World Motor Sport Council - this is one of the important international bodies closely related to the Formula 1, the sport which definitely has a much wider audience and an international outreach than WMSC radio station.

So I don't object to the changes you outlined. Would you like to go ahead and make them?

cherkash (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recnet is back online, so the links to the Canadian websites can go back online as of today. They have a new website, sorta. Their search site is now at recnet.net, but the recnet.com site just redirects you, so I see no reason to change it. My bookmarks are still working. The official "Move" page is here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. JPG-GR (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you userfy the deleted article in my userspace? The deleted version certainly violated BLP1E for focus on a 2009 incident, but the man was a notable attorney in the 1960s through 1990s (he prosecuted Roy Cohn), and, if I get a chance, I'd like to see if there's a good article to be had there without worrying about WP:DEADLINE. (And not to violate WP:CRYSTAL, but the 2009 incident is going to be back in the news in 2011 when the House Oversight Committee investigates.) Many thanks. THF (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. JPG-GR (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! THF (talk) 06:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I thought you might be interested in the December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We're currently recruiting help to clear a massive backlog (22,000+ articles), and we need your help! Participants in the drive will receive barnstars for their contributions! If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 18:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Please restore that template, due to the following reasons:

1. The content of that template has not been fully megred with the other article - yet, as indicated in this discussion.
2. No consensus has been reached to delete it: this discussion shows that User:Nightn (14:15, 13 December) supports the deletion, while both User:Eliko (14:32, 13 December) and User:Alinor (09:17, 9 December) - who is the author of this template, reject the deletion, unless the template is fully merged with the other article. Thank you. Eliko (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Please complete any necessary merging and then alert an admin so they may delete the template. JPG-GR (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. President! I'm posting here just to let you know about this: Template talk:R help#Requested move. I had to step away from Wikipedia last week, and when I returned, the TfD was closed. I believe in good faith that a crossnamespace redirect would address all of Paine Ellsworth's concerns about preserving the accessibility of the page by typing "Template:R..." into the search box, while keeping the page in the proper namespace. I reviewed the TfD, and I don't believe this solution was discussed. I employed WP:BRD to move the page, expecting that, in doing so, Paine wouldn't have any issue so long as the redirect is preserved. Paine reverted, and I started a discussion. (B-R-D, so I thought.) I'm mentioning it to you since you closed the discussion, and I want to be as assuring as I can that my intentions are entirely above-board, particularly in light of Paine's seeming assumption that I'm not acting in good faith. I asked Paine to explain why a crossnamespace redirect would not address Paine's concerns, and Paine requested that I refer that question to you. Would you have any objection to move + crossnamespace-redirect as the solution for Template:R help? Regards. --Bsherr (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't there a whole bunch of these Template:R something templates? I personally think that they're fine in either place. I can certainly understand why things like these don't belong in the article namespace or the file namespace, but help vs. template just doesn't seem like it makes a difference. If you have a hammer - you don't put it in the drawer with the forks and you don't put it on the wall with the family pictures, but whether you put it in the drawer with the screwdrivers or on the wall with other hanging tools, it's close enough to me. I will state for the record for PE's benefit that I've never known you to violate AGF. I'm just glad I don't have to go to WP:RM. That place used to be a small mess, then a group of us got together and cleaned it up, and then some stuff went down and now it's a backlogged sty. JPG-GR (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this isn't an R template. (And you thinking is was is an example of exactly why it shouldn't be in the template namespace!) It's a help page for the R templates, not a template itself. That's why it was up at TfD. The creator put it in the template namespace it there only so that people typing "Template:R..." into the search box would find it. A crossnamespace redirect would address this concern, but I don't think it was ever considered at the TfD. Would you object to this as a solution? And thanks for the character reference. Regards --Bsherr (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection. JPG-GR (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I think it's the better solution. The problem is that Paine is interpreting your close of the TfD as recognizing a consensus against any move of the page, even with a crossnamespace redirect. Was that your intention? I've looked, and I don't think there was enough discussion of the issue to form consensus on it. If you look, you'll see the only argument against it was that crossnamespace redirects are discouraged. But it's a far less drastic IAR to have a crossnamespace redirect to a help page in the template namespace (what I'm proposing) than to actually have a help page in the template namespace (the current state). --Bsherr (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was essentially "no consensus to support deletion" but felt that saying merely that would be ignoring the argument over namespace. The latter is the only reason why I wrote the lengthy (for me) closure instead of the former. JPG-GR (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, you also seemed to feel that leaving the page as is would cause no problems. The only problem it appears to be causing is editor Bsherr's continued objection to its existence. Bsherr's main challenge is that the page is a pseudo- or quasi-template, therefore it should not exist in template namespace. You addressed this in your Tfd closing, yet you still felt that, due to its obvious utility, it was in the right place and could remain as it is. One question that arises in my mind is simply, "What's the difference?" Whether the page remains as is or gets moved and ends up as a CNR, it will still always be (by Bsherr's reckoning) a non-template in template namespace. The only difference that I see is that if it is changed to a CNR, then it might be deleted, and I find that possibility, however remote, to be unacceptable. As you noted, it does not hurt anything where it is, so how would it be an improvement to Wikipedia to alter its format and risk its deletion?

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  06:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I have the feeling that no matter what I say, either side can argue for their position. The whatever-it-is has a very clear utility. It is also apparently used by at the very least a handful of editors. It should not be deleted. Where it is located does not concern me as long as it remains located somewhere other than the trash can. JPG-GR (talk) 07:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JPG, I rarely ask for this, but I think it's needed here. Could you revise your close to state, as you explained here, that it's without prejudice to a page move? Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I would ask, JPG, that you first peruse the R help Talk page briefly before you act on Bsherr's strange request. Thank you, and Happiest of New Years to you both.

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  17:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest on commenting on this issue any further. JPG-GR (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]