Jump to content

User talk:Trialpears/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 10

15:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Your WP:SNOW close of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 28#Template:Soccerbase is not supported by policy and in my opinion a very poor quality decision and supervote. The course of a discussion of discussion which favours the Gambling Industry and a high exposure with WikiProject Football may well have a vote profile that favours those interested in the WikiProject Site and at extreme may even have been influenced by the Gambling companies themselves. Use of the word "clearly" is often an attempt to dominiate a discussion and !Supervote and failure to identify important points or alternatives in the summary that had come of out of discussions as could have been done by a more experienced closer. You are "clearly?" looking at the !votes and failing to recognise the nature of discussion profile where people hold back sometimes some interesting points towards the end of the discussion. As such I see your intervention as disruptive and ultimately a bigger waste of poeples time. Without giving any information that could lead to a WP:OUTING can you confirm you have no connection to the gambling industry? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark I have no connection to the gambling industry and stand by my close. I have performed hundreds of closes at TfD with this one being part of my normal rounds. I did not just count the votes here and considered if there is any reason to give any of the keep !votes less weight. I saw no indication of sock puppeting or canvassing here with most participants being well established users actively editing football related articles. I also considered the relevant guideline, WP:EL which I am very familiar with from many other TfDs. While ELNO#5 is a reasonable, policy backed, deletion rationale it was effectively refuted by people not considering that the primary purpose. It is also worth noting that ELUES#3 states (with non-applicable parts removed): Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to [...] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics[...]) [can normally be linked]. My close is not a supervote either with it reflecting the consensus reached in the discussion.
While I may have closed the discussion it does not mean that your proposal is doomed though, just that this TfD doesn't have a reasonable chance to succeed. I think opening a discussion at WT:FOOTY about whether other statistics sources should be preferred could be received more positively and perhaps with some more preparations a future TfD with a concrete plan for replacements could succeed; there are several templates that have had SNOW keeps but later been deleted. A final note about my decision to do this as a snow closure: I have long thought that we should be more comfortable closing discussions early, especially when they are likely to consume as much editor time as this one. Looking at page views it has been viewed over 1200 times in just 4 days which is many times more than a regular TfD log page receives indicating that literally hundreds of editors have read this discussion making it a significant time sink with only tiny benefits from letting the discussion stay open for a few more days. It may be reasonable to say that I put the bar for doing a snow close lower than many others would. --Trialpears (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Thankyou for taking time to explain your reasoning but the clear intent of this of this template to be used in External links is a major issue. While many !keep votes claimed use for sourcing the templates design goes against its use for citation, unlike Soccerway. No explanation was given as to why officai sites were not providing the required statistics. While you comments here are useful they are retrospective and not made in the summing up. You have seen one viewpoint of the discussion rather than taking a fully wholistic approach. While you claim many visitors were editors they have have in fact been Wikipedia Readers who would not normally participate in such a discussion, and as such visitors like have a pro-football and possibly gambling bias the decision to snow close early, especially as you know you have a propensity for so doing, was an incorrect one. While the suggestion to go to WP:FOOTY was seem approrpiate that is likely a baised venue, WP:DRV is probably more neutral given your intervention here. The result may perhaps ought to have been the Soccerbase and Soccerway should be improved to allow and encourage their better uses as sources rather than internal links, but your !supervoting and failure to summarise neutrally had terminated that discussion. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) You can obviously go the WP:CLOSECHALLENGE route, and generally I may even agree with you that this template is problematic, but I don't see how you can expect Trialpears to have closed it any other way, and DRV will likely endorse that. Even no consensus would've been a stretch. You can't expect them to somehow turn a flurry of keep rationales into a delete based on your nom. The indication that he's related to the gambling industry due to this close is just silly. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: I object to silly. It is a question appropriate to be asked and while that is the expected response and I'd be extremely disappointed that it wasn't the sheer scale of use of this template whoul be an SEO adviser dream without any brown envelops being used whatsoever. The problem with Trialpears close was it was early and failure to cover all appropriate points in the summary and a guidance as the way forward.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Djm-leighpark, I do not have much to add here as I've already explained my close. If you believe WT:FOOTY will be biased you could always advertise the discussion elsewhere. DRV is definitely not the right venue for continued discussion since DRV is only concerned with whether my close was appropriate or not. The most favorable outcome DRV could reasonably reach would be relisting the discussion, but since there is no indication a large amount of editors would support the proposal after a relist it would almost certainly be kept anyway. You can always nominate it for deletion again in a couple of months if you want. I will reiterate though that it definitely wasn't a supervote according to the normal definition of it being "a close that reflects the preference of the closer, rather than according to the content of the discussion". I believe we both can agree that my consensus determination was sound, the only dispute being whether it was snowing. --Trialpears (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
@Trialpears: To state the obvious DRV is not the right venue for you as the snow was certainly questionable. Interpolation is easy and extrapolation is difficult. The fact that the template's documentation encourges, nay virtually mandates, its use as an external link whilst not facilititating its use of a source is a key part of the argument and was not addreessed by the keepers. The tone of the close of close was someehat different to the tone of your response on the talk page. Its 3am in the morning at present in my currently disrupted RL on the settee at the moment and I'll review my precise details details in the morning or somewhat but a DRV is extremely likely and I think you need to be very very very careful about disruptive snows. Experienced editors will so often wait towards the end of the 168 hour period. On your initial response on the talk page you noted the nom. was reasonable, that wa not my impression from the stating of the summary but I need to re-read that in the light of day. If there is a discrepency in tone that is an issue. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Djm-leighpark, There is nothing weird about having another tone when going into the details of why I believe the close was appropriate than when making a short statement about something I believed wouldn't get any pushback. Participants in the discussion are aware that the template is used for external links and have evaluated it on those merits with several people referencing WP:EL which wouldn't be the case if they believed it was used for citations. I don't think we have anything more to discuss here. Take it to DRV if you really want to, but as I've said before discussing alternative sources for player statistics seems much more likely to lead to a successful change than having a week long debate about whether to maybe reopen a discussion that is exceedingly unlikely to reach a consensus for deletion. --Trialpears (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Trialpears: We think very differently, any while probable DRV results are endorse with an outside relist it might also come with a recommendation for say equalisation of the say Soccerway and Soccerbase templates as was raised earlier in the discussion and to which I pointed out an interesting albeit not perfect use-case. I will take your advice to mull any DRV but please be aware that is a high possibility I will move this forward at some point. I remained opined and annoyed your intervention in the TfD was not to policy and inappropriate and unwarrented. Thankyou.10:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Djm-leighpark Modifying the template can be done by discussion at the talk page and does not require a TfD. It is unlikely that DRV would come with such a recommendation since the purpose of DRV is to assess the merits of the close and not to be a TfD round 2. If you take this to DRV please leave a note here since I'm not watching DRV. --Trialpears (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Trialpears: I agree the purpose of the DRV is to discuss the administration of the DRV with particular emphasis on the close; though sometimes it may be used for example to re-evaluate a draft for re-entry to possibly salted mainspace. And the appropriateness of your snow close might be evaluated there, the quality, balance and possible bias of your close reasoning and decision. Some might comment on the spaminess of site and how it generally sets bad precedences on what is allowed. I will certainly be refraining more from rebuking excess external links as a result of this decision. Improvements or other to these protected templates to the benefit of the gambling industry are of course may be independently initiated independently of any DRV as my contributions may validate. I am minded the gambling industry should probably commend you for your closure. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

The NBA WikiProject Barnstar
Thanks for initiating the basketballstats merge discussions and carrying out the changes. Great idea, as I don't think the holding cell option existed in the earlier discussions.—Bagumba (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Bagumba It was my pleasure! Feel free to ping me if you want some help with other template changes in the future! --Trialpears (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Usertalkpage ‎

Your close of Template:Usertalkpage didn't tag it as being merged or added it to the holding cell. --Gonnym (talk) 10:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Gonnym, huh, guess I missed that. I've implemented the merge with your sandbox version. Thanks for the reminder! --Trialpears (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually, this is the specific case I had in mind that got me wondering If you decide to close a discussion, do you have to implement it? Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

16:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Mass tagging question

Hey, when you tagged all the language icon templates, did you have a bot for that? If so, could you help me out and tag all the templates at Index of ISO 639 name templates for me? --Gonnym (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Gonnym, just good old AWB. The only thing that comes to mind in terms of bots is DannyS712 bot 13, but that is CfD only so that's no good. We really should have one though and since it's such a trivial task, just generate a list and prepend the tag, I feel like speedy approval would be sensible. Perhaps Primefac knows something or could comment on the prospects of a speedy approval. If you don't feel like creating a bot account and all that I guess I could do it with PearBOT. --Trialpears (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
As far as I am aware there are no bots used for mass-tagging pages nominated at XFD, likely because such things are rarely done (i.e. there are bots who have done the task, just none that have standing approval). With a list and a bot it's a trivial matter, Pear or Prime could easily do it as a one-off task. Obviously (speaking for the "listing at TFD" bit) these pages would all be listed on a subpage to avoid overwhelming the TFD nomination itself. Primefac (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Could either of you (@Primefac) help with your bots to tag the letter templates in Category:ISO 639 name from code templates and Category:ISO 639 name from code templates without a category? --Gonnym (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Given that I seem to be the only active BAG at the moment it might be better to file the BRFA under PearBOT so I can approve it. Otherwise, who knows how long it will sit there. Primefac (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
BRFA filed at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT II 9. --Trialpears (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Approved. Primefac (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Gonnym just make the nomination and I'll get tagging as soon as possible. --Trialpears (talk) 08:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Created the nomination at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 August 14#Template:ISO 639 name aa by tagging Template:ISO 639 name aa (so you can remove that from the list). --Gonnym (talk) 09:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Gonnym, shouldn't these be noincluded since the TfD notice breaks all the wikilinks they are used in, which are most transclusions? --Trialpears (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
That's a good point, you are probably correct. --Gonnym (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Question

Please sir. Can you help me to show me how to add Charles Egbu on search engine optimization? Sadeeqzaria (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Sadeeqzaria, the article doesn't show up in search engines because it hasn't been reviewed by a new page reviewer. I would review it myself if I could, but since I'm not a new page reviewer I can't help you. Just give it a few more days and it should get done. --Trialpears (talk) 08:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok thank you sir. Sadeeqzaria (talk) 09:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much sir for assisting me. I am a new contributor, I need to learn many things like submitting draft, uploading image with copy right tage and others please, what assistance can you do to me? Do you have WhatsApp group? Or video toturial? Sadeeqzaria (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Sadeeqzaria, my pleasure! I have a decent grasp of most areas of Wikipedia and should be able to give you some answer to most of your question, but you're probably better served by asking at the teahouse where there are lots of editors doing their best to help new contributors who likely know more than I do and can give you a faster answer. I don't believe there is a WhatsApp group for Wikipedia help, but there is a discord server and lots of IRC channels that fill a similar role. Happy editing! --Trialpears (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

20:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

17:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

20:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Modify the Reign parameter

Hello, I have given the necessary explanations on the discussion page Template: infobox royalty, please checkArya.Go (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Arya.Go, I'm happy to implement changes if there is a consensus for them, but I'm not seeing one right now. Perhaps you could drop a note at WT:ROYAL and see what they think about your changes? --Trialpears (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

15:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

DIAMM tempalte

Hi! You seem better versed in the technical side of Wikipedia than I so I was wondering if you could assist with this: I think a template for Medieval composers at the Digital Image Archive of Medieval Music, akin to Template:IMSLP would be beneficial, but I'm not sure how to do it myself. I suspect it would use the "people id" numbers in each url (e.g. 155 for Gherardello da Firenze). Any insight would be appreciated. Aza24 (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Aza24, that looks both feasible to do and sensible to put in a template. I'm currently not home and have a quite a lot of IRL stuff going on right now, but I can probably create the template in a few days. --Trialpears (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
No rush! I'd appreciate anything thing you are able to come up with. Aza24 (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Aza24, after a long wait I've finally created it now at {{DIAMM}}. Supports composers and composition pages currently. Just ask me if you are missing any features and I will (hopefully more swiftly) help. --Trialpears (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
The template looks great! The only thing I noticed is that it seems to make a page break, like in the external links section of Josquin des Prez#External links but this may have been an input error on my part? Aza24 (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Aza24,  Fixed forgot to remove some white space added for readability. --Trialpears (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Lovely to see. You've helped immensely as I try to tidy up the mess of Medieval and Renaissance composers we have on WP. Even the art and literature equivalents have had so much more attention! Aza24 (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you with this again, I had added two categories to the template (Category:Music external link templates and Category:Composer templates) but in doing so I seem to have made it so any pages with this template are also added to the category. I tried moving the categories to the sub page, but to no avail. Aza24 (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Aza24, actually you solved it! Category updates through templates just take a while. Usually the categories are put inside <includeonly> tags and inside {{sandbox other}} to avoid the documentation and sandbox pages being put in the category as well though. --Trialpears (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

16:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

21:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

21:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Being merged

Template:Being merged has been nominated for merging with Template:Merging. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. JsfasdF252 (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

San Francisco Bay Area and Random portal component

Thank you for your comments at Module talk:Random portal component#Expensive parser functions. I've been fixing portals with Lua errors and only Portal:San Francisco Bay Area now remains. As you are probably aware, the portal calls the module via {{Random portal component}} several times. Each call selects one from a set of no more than 233 pages, but the total size of the sets is well over 500. As well as displaying one randomly chosen page, the module has been changed to check the existence of the first 60 pages (59 of which it does not need on this occasion). We may need to rewrite the portal to use one of the alternative templates which are not required to perform such checks. Certes (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't spotted that your comment was from last September! I've gone ahead with the change. Certes (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Certes, thanks for fixing this and explaining why it was behaving so strangely! I don't remember the details here though since it was a year ago I looked at this. --Trialpears (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

16:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Template cache no longer working?

Hi Trialpears, has PearBot stopped updating Template:Template cache? From the portals is seems it stopped updating a couple of month back. Arman (Talk) 14:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Armanaziz Huh I thought it should try again a few hours later if it encountered any issues and I haven't gotten any scheduling errors from toolforge. Will start a run manually and do some debugging when I get home. --Trialpears (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Armanaziz Turns out that getting home before midnight is a rare event now a days, so it took more time than I thought to get to this. Seems like there has been some change to the toolforge pywikibot installation which caused this and probably requires a slight code change on my part. I don't currently have time to look into it more, but I'll make sure it gets fixed! --Trialpears (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Armanaziz Actually I managed to find the issue and it's back up and running. --Trialpears (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
It is working now. Such a pleasure to have you around! Arman (Talk) 11:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Archives template

Hello, I had made a previous template edit request for Template:Archives and due to not collecting any consensus & the request itself, it was declined. I have changed it in line with the comment you made so that a banner appears when |large= is used and other changes, shown here. I put up a section on the talk page a few days ago although there was little response so I was wondering if you could provide feedback, thanks. Terasail[Talk] 14:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Terasail,  Done. Thank you so much for doing this! This template have had some problems and someone going through and dealing with the weirdness and improving the auto archiving notice was sorely needed. I'm sorry if I sounded critical in my feedback, I just want it to get as good as possible! --Trialpears (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Trialpears for the comments you have some good points I didn't consider. I have noticed that the index doesn't check for an index with a space for example at Talk:Donald Trump which appears to be more common, so I will probably attempt to just change it to be a hybrid format with the the Talk header. Terasail[Talk] 09:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Trialpears: I have taken some of the ideas you presented and changed the template to reduce the length of the automatically archiving text, however I did not remove the bot parameter as I believe the editor adding the template can decide. I also fixed where you missed a |banner=. And I removed the switch for deciding the {{Archive list}} parameters, and changed it to a nested if, which is smaller in bytes and for me at least, is a bit easier to understand. {{Archive list}} also works more in line with {{Talk header}} and should show indexes. I was wondering if I should make a template edit request for these changes or not since I need a concensus however only you and CapnZapp have ever replied to my talk page comments. Thanks. Terasail[Talk] 16:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

15:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

16:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

17:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

16:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

15:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

15:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

17:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

17:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

HELP ME

hi dear user, i have done some editation on Ebrahim Fathi but now i want to return it, and beacuse i don't have access, please return my editiation.Wikibachan (talk). 23:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

16:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Another template request...?

Hey Trialpears, I hope this message finds you well. Would you be willing to make a template basically akin to Template:ODNBsub but for Grove music and Grove art? The only difference would be that the grove music "UK public library membership" would go to this link and grove art to this one. Now that I think about it, I guess it might be not "Grove music/art" but "Oxford music/art" – but it doesn't really matter. Let me know – Aza24 (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Aza24, looks quite simple. Will probably do it tomorrow. --Trialpears (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Aza24 Please excuse my slowness here. I've created {{Grove Art subscription}} and {{Grove Music subscription}} which I believe is what you're looking for? I would be happy to help out more or improve these templates, but as you can see it may take a few days. --Trialpears (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
No worries at all about the delay! Looking at the templates, they're exactly what I needed – so thank you! Best - Aza24 (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

21:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

20:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

15:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Is Template cache working correctly?

Hi Trialpears, sorry I can only bother you with this. I am not sure if PearBot is correctly updating Template:Template cache. Isn't it supposed to fetch at least 6 most recent items? In Portal:Bangladesh for example, the fetched news item does not seem to have the key words. It would be great if you could take a look what's going on. Arman (Talk) 13:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Armanaziz, I've had a look and found the weirdness you're referring to and have no idea why it happened. It seems to be working now at least and it was not PearBOTs fault as the bot only caches the result of {{Transclude selected current events|days=365|Bangladesh|Dhaka|Bengali}} since it would increase the page load time by a huge amount and in many cases time out otherwise. If you want to persue this further I think asking around at Template talk:Transclude selected current events or WP:VPT is your best bet. --Trialpears (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

My talkpage

Thanks for spotting the problem with my talkpage. I wonder why it worked for a decade before stuffing up? In any case, I'll see if I can delete the /archivelist shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Shaidar cuebiyar, I think it's my fault from when I made the auto option a lot more automatic over a year ago making it possible for it to notice whether an archive list was provide or not and turn it on or off accordingly. While doing this I fixed the roughly 1% of cases where it wouldn't work when they used the list parameter, but I forgot about the archive list since it doesn't show up in wikicode. I've now compiled a list of all 175 archive lists currently in use and intend on checking that there is no problem. If the proportion of pages with issues is the same as for the list parameter this issue should only affect less than 5 pages. --Trialpears (talk) 12:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation and help.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb, again, but I still don't like the display on my talkpage. I would prefer to see my talkpage list (and link to) the Archives numerically, e.g. 1, 2, 3, ... and not its current form with no list of archives. I have some unnumbered/poorly numbered Archives, which could be deleted if they are part of the problem e.g. User talk:Shaidar cuebiyar/Archives, User talk:Shaidar cuebiyar/archivelist and User talk:Shaidar cuebiyar/archivelist/Archive 1. You have my permission to edit my talkpage and delete those additional (now blanked) subpages such that my main talkpage displays the archive box better. Thank you in advance.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hpy festive season. BTW, I still have no vision of my archives on my talkpage. The above blanked pages still exist, how do I get them deleted so that my talkpage works better?–shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Shaidar cuebiyar, sorry for the wait. You caught me right in my longest period of inactivity since I started editing, but it should be fixed now. Any text in a subpage named /archivelist is automatically displayed in the box for historical reasons and now i moved the page to User talk:Shaidar cuebiyar/old archivelist which lets it work like normal. Currently it displays an automatically updating numbered list which should include all your archives as all of them seem to follow the /Archive # naming convention. If you want to customize it or link to other pages the simplest way to do that would be using |list=. I sadly can't help you with deleting them since I'm not an admin, but if you wish putting {{db-u1}} on them should make an admin delete them. --Trialpears (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Yum! Thanks heaps. I won't worry about deleting those for now.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

16:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Tagging categories

Hello, Trialpears,

You don't need to worry about empty sockpuppet categories, this frequently happens when a different sockpuppeteer is identified and a case is moved. The categories just get deleted as CSD G6, housekeeping, uncontroversial deletion. You can tag them for speedy deletion if you come across them but they usually appear on the daily Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories and get deleted. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 02:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Liz, alright! That CfD was in a bit weird and in retrospect I'm quite surprised no one deleted it earlier. --Trialpears (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)