User talk:Zackmann08


User	Talk	Awards	Contacts	Notes	Templates/Tools	Bookmarks	My Sandbox	v t e

This is Zackmann08's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15: 7 days

Why did you remove a parameter for tennis players without discussion?

I can find no mention that we removed the parameter of residence from the template Infobox Tennis Biography. We were not informed and no rfc took place to remove it from our template. Please stop removing things until this is straightened out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it was removed globally at RFC... - Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also encourage you to read WP:OWN. Your statements that we were not informed and our template are not appropriate. I will however stop removing things until this is straightened out. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also checked since it was discussed again in 2024... it does not apply to other infoboxes like Tennis Biography. Please stop this nonsense. By we I mean the Tennis Project. That is mandatory if it is to be affected in some way. Please remove your recent changes to the template. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say it does not apply to other Infoboxes? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed and brought up in 2024. Different Project infoboxes have different needs. It applied to Infobox Person, not every other infobox. Messing with That Tennis project infobox and hundreds of players without consultation is wrong and needs to be remedied. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can certainly bring the query up there on the template talk page. Perhaps it will be agreed upon, but you just dont change it without that discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's de-escalate this ok? I genuinely thought that what I was doing was going to be uncontroversial as it was covered by not 1 but 2 RFC's with nearly unanimous decisions. You disagree. That is totally valid. Let's let this third RFC run its course and I will of course stand by the WP:CONSENSUS.

I would however caution you to read WP:OWNBEHAVIOR which specifically says that statements such as "Please clear this with WikiProject Z first." are examples of ownership behavior.

I understand you disagree with what I did. It has been reverted, now lets let the RFC do its thing. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But when I say clear this with "WikiProject Z first" that is far from ownership. What I meant was you do not change something major like a parameter of a template created for WikiProject Tennis without first discussing it at WikiProject Tennis. There is a reason that template is protected, because it works for countless thousands of articles. You made a mistake in thinking all templates get covered by another template. And it looks like the golf project @Tewapack: is now involved in the dispute. These wikiprojects must be included in discussions that affect the projects involved. We aren't going to find the discussion otherwise. You also made a mistake less than a month ago in trying to merge the Infobox tennis biography with a real tennis infobox... not related infoboxes. It was an honest mistake also but perhaps you should better familiarize yourself with the Tennis Project and the sport in general before attempting these sorts of changes. The Project talk page can answer any queries you might have... it might take a couple days but we usually get back to you with any help you might need or any insight that might help. Heck we might have started a poll of members to see if they wanted to tweak the residence code to make it country only or remove it. And even in being bold and removing the residence parameter, it would really have been a requisite to inform WikiProject Tennis that thousands of articles would now be having red popups and that they were invalid. Even if we agreed, then at least multiple editors could have helped remove the attribute on thousands of articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore residence parameter to template Infobox golfer

The residence parameter was removed without discussion or consensus. Consensus reached on a related infobox doesn't apply here. Tewapack (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also please restore the text of the sporting_nationality tag to display "Sporting nationality" in the infobox per Template talk:Infobox golfer/Archive 3#Edit request 4 October 2021 Tewapack (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tewapack:

Done. Really didn't think we needed a FOURTH RFC to clarify this issue, but apparently we do. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates/Unused Templates Task Force

If you're interested in joining my taskforce that I started. I also have this page in my userspace you can find useful: User:WikiCleanerMan/Template category map WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parameters

Moved to Template talk:Infobox writer § Arbitrary break

– Lets keep this in one place for my own sanity. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There are a number of parameters that we get for free with this conversion and unless you can argue that they will truly harm the page to have them included, I don't understand the problem in getting them for free or the need to go through the extra effort to exclude them. I think this is actually the more fundamental disagreement. I accept that, from a technical perspective, the parameters are "free" in that no additional effort is required in order to add them. But I cannot emphasize enough how much I do not see them as "free" from an article perspective. To give you an example: we have a fairly strong and recent consensus that the "nationality" parameter should not be used, and "citizenship" should only be used when it cannot be inferred from birthplace. Looking at the parameter link you provided, we've got tens of thousands of articles that are not consistent with that consensus. Same with non-notable family members being listed, same with birth names that are the same as current names... every time you add a parameter that is not going to be relevant in many cases, you add to the maintenance burden of cleaning up after it getting used anyways. Now, I agree with you that there are existing cases of parameters that are used infrequently, and I agree with you that at some point someone should pursue various RfCs in order to clean up the current state of things. But I also cannot emphasize enough how I do not see "we have problems already" as meaning it's okay to keep adding to that pile.

This is here rather than at template talk because it's a more general issue, and I think we should either resolve it or agree to disagree before trying to talk about individual parameters, because otherwise we're going to just continue to get frustrated. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I want to commend you for your AGF. We clearly feel differently about this but I hope can continue to disagree amicably. I am going to choose not to respond further at this time as I'm heated about some other off-wiki stuff going on and I don't want that to affect my response to you. Let me cool off and I will respond later. Wanted you to know I got and appreciate your message and am not ignoring you. Just choosing to wait to respond until I'm in a better headspace. I think we will both benefit. Didn't want you to see me editing elsewhere and think I'm ignoring you. We will talk later.

Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:Infobox mapframe

I notice you added parameter checking to {{Infobox mapframe}}, but it is now objecting to the documented argument "zoom" with the preview message 'Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox mapframe with unknown parameter "zoom"'. I would expect that "zoom" would be included in "mapframe_args=y", which you specified, so it is likely that the issue comes from some higher level rather than your action. However, you may be better placed to sort this out than I am. To duplicate: click edit on any article containing a zoom article to Infobox mapframe (I encountered this at Raumati Beach), then press preview. The error appears just below the location map in the infobox. I see that Category:Pages using infobox mapframe with unknown parameters has 58,000 entries, which this might be a contributing factor to.-Gadfium (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gadfium: hmmm. not sure what's going on and i'm not in a place to dive into it at the moment... Obviously there is a problem with what I did though so I have reverted my edit until I can do a proper investigation. Thank you for bringing this to my attention! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.-Gadfium (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is that {{infobox mapframe}} itself uses parameters that are different from the |mapframe-xxx= parameters. See the examples for parameters that are valid in {{Infobox mapframe}}. Note that the parent infobox template, e.g. Infobox hospital, is using the documented mapframe-xxx parameter names, probably to prevent parameter namespace conflicts. I have a feeling that the TemplateData section for {{infobox mapframe}} is not accurate. I am not a Lua programmer, but it appears that the "mapframe-" prefix on the parameters is optional, and that the trimArgs function strips it before reading the parameter names. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: that is EXACTLY what I was thinking as well. Haven't rolled up my sleeves and dived in yet, but that what my first cursory glance revealed as well. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have fixed it. I possibly missed a few parameters, and the deprecated parameters may want special processing. I'll leave that to you. There is some odd stuff happening at Great Slave Lake and similar pages. It's something to do with processing of the coordinates, I think. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The TemplateData report is a good place to look for obvious problems that you could fix with an AWB run, like the 128 articles using |tyep= instead of |type=. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yea that EXACTLY how I do these.. Problem is, per the 2 diffs in my sandbox that I just tagged you in, the report is wrong.

Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The linked TD parameter usage report can't be "wrong". It just reports what is happening in articles, and it pulls the "Valid" column values from the TemplateData section, which can definitely be wrong. If you mean that the TemplateData itself is wrong, that would not surprise me. It may be that that "mapframe-" prefixes need to be removed. As I said, I don't program in Lua, so I don't know what that trimArgs function is doing, exactly. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, clarify... I think the TemplateData is wrong, and in turn is causing the report to be inaccurate in column 2 "Valid name?". You are correct that the use of params in the report cannot be "wrong".

|tyep= obviously should be |type= but my point is that the current version of the report marks BOTH as being invalid parameters for the template. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The TemplateData section of the documentation is poorly designed in many ways. It gives the impression that it is authoritative about what parameters the template supports or doesn't support, and which parameters are required, but there is no required correspondence between what the TD section says and how the template actually works. A TD section can say a parameter is required, even when the template itself makes no attempt to require that parameter. A TD section can say that a parameter is supported, leading to a false "Y" value in the parameter usage report, even when that parameter is not supported. And vice versa, a supported parameter can be omitted from TD, leading to a false "N" value in the report. The "Valid" column in the report should be trusted minimally. The main function of TD is to present a list of parameters to editors inserting templates using the Visual Editor, but unfortunately, people have tied various reports and functionality to the TD sections on the assumption that its contents are accurate. It's a mess and always has been. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for sure... So I've been doing a LOT of cleanups of CAT:UNKNOWN and I always take the param reports with a grain of salt. If you glance at my userpage, I have a "Check in November" section. Those are for Templates where I have personally checked and updated the TemplateData in preparation for the Nov 1st run of the TemplateParams report. Those are the ONLY ones that I take as anything close to "gospel" and even then I'm cautious because there could always have been changes between my update to the TD and the run of the report. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've found another couple of parameters in use for Infobox mapframe, which are not documented in the template but are used in the module: 'plain=' and 'frame-align='. They're in use in the article Motions Creek. I don't see any obvious change made by the frame-align, but that may be because it's embedded in an infobox. Removing the plain= makes the river bolder. At [1] I see plain has been used 221 times in the last month, and frame-align 155 times. These params are used in several examples at Template talk:Infobox mapframe/Archive 1. Should we add these params into the allowed list?-Gadfium (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gadfium: so you might be onto something... However per this test I don't see those 2 parameters doing anything... Are you seeing something I'm not? The fact that a parameter is widely used in the param report doesn't necessarily mean it is a valid param. Remember that the report means that on October 1st those parameters were in use X number of times. It does NOT mean it was added recently... It could be those parameters were once supported and were removed months or years ago. That happens all the time... I just finished removing hundred of instances of |casus= from {{Infobox military conflict}}. That parameter was removed in like 2016 if I remember my late night research correctly. Until the unknown parameters check is added, no one notices these unused/nonworking parameters...

That being said, I'm not in a position to speak authoritatively on this code... So let's both investigate further. Take a look at my sandbox code I linked to. Jonesey95 any thoughts? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gadfium: as a follow up, look at Module:Infobox mapframe Line 211 & 214. It looks like these two values are hardcoded so passing them to the template causes them to just be overridden. Thus, they are indeed invalid parameters. I don't really feel the need to trace the module history, but if you feel like checking the diffs, I bet you a tray of cookies that it used to be you could pass that value, but it was hard coded ages ago. Again I might be missing something, but is how things appear to me. Let me know if you interpret something different. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was comparing the output by flipping back and forth between two tabs. Yours is a much better test. I can't see a difference there. I also tried making frame-align-left and plain=no, which also made no difference. I now agree that these parameters do nothing, and I'll remove them from pages where I encounter them (usually when I'm doing new page patrol). Thanks for your help. [just saw your additional comment. I had seen that in the module but I'm not fluent in lua and thought there might be an override somewhere]-Gadfium (talk) 05:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate you bringing it up! I wasn't sure until I dove into it so def worth the question. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Those two parameters do nothing because they are hard-coded into the module" was also my conclusion when I looked at the code. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Odd use of parameter 1=

If you're on the hunt for unsupported parameters, here's an odd batch of 300+ pages. I don't know what that value in parameter |1= was supposed to do, but it doesn't appear to be doing anything now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. It looks like an attempt to use |coordinates= that went awry. Surprised there are so many of them with the exact same error tho. I'm going to wait to tackle {{Infobox mapframe}} until after I have the new ParamReport this weekend as it just works better with my workflow to have that as a guide. I generate a big list of regexes that expedites the process... Replacing |tyep= with |type= for example. But I will def keep an eye out for these pages and get them fixed. Thanks! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drumlumman moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Drumlumman. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it consists of machine-generated text and the original text was regenerated with AI. Please review every word and fact to ensure errors were not introduced by that process before submitting for review.. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rsjaffe I totally agree! Make sure you notify the page creator (not me). All I did was correct some errors I came across on that page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did notify them. Just wanted you to know as well in case you wanted to work on it some more and couldn't find it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! I appreciate the notification. Better safe than sorry. -- Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I apologise for causing those cite errors, however the article did have cite errors before. I do use preview, however I missed those errors on this occasion. Your response to my reply was inappropriate, however I thoroughly dislike confrontation. It puts me off wanting to edit entirely. As you believe I am not a regular, how you responded technically comes under WP:BITE. Please be aware of this in future. I wish to leave things on a good note, so I will thank you for fixing the errors and wish you well with your Wikipedia endeavours. Take care. 11WB (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@11WB: I was in the midst of leaving a comment on your talk page, but since you came here, I will respond here instead. I came to you in good faith to POLITELY notify you about a problem. You decided to take offense to that notification. WP:DTTR#AGF specifically says Recipients should also put themselves in the shoes of the user of the template. How were they to know you are a regular? Were you acting like an experienced user?

Nothing in your editing or on your talk page led me to believe that you were an "experienced user" so I had no reason to hesitate giving you a very polite message that said, in essence "hey, you made a tiny mistake here. Here is a link to why it is a mistake and how to prevent it in the future." Rather than taking it in good faith, you completely ignored the message as it was a template, complained that I had "templated a regular" and asked me to do the work of proving to you the exact diff where you made a mistake.

For the record I have more than EIGHTY TIMES the number of edits you do and have been editing more than twice as long. The ONLY reason I bring that up is that I am MUCH more a regular than you. Yet I have never and will never object to someone templating me. How can I expect them to know how long I have been here or that I am a regular?! What's more, and the much more important point here, if I make a mistake, I want and need someone to tell me. Let me be clear, I make mistakes ALL THE TIME. Feel free to browse my talk page for the many recent ones. It is immensely helpful when someone points out my mistake as it prevents me from making it in the future.

If my tone or my actions offended you, I genuinely am sorry. That was NOT my intention. Let me also say, adding a duplicate parameter is far from a big deal... It causes a tiny error and gets cleaned up, but it does have unintended consequences. That is why Template:uw-dupargs was created and is used regularly. I will continue to be careful about WP:BITE (something I sometimes fail to do when I get frustrated) and I would encourage you to work on AGF. If you continue to edit on wikipedia (which I sincerely hope that you do), I flat out guarantee you will get tempalted again. Instead of taking offense that someone used a template, I would encourage you to think of it this way:

This user took the time to trace down who had caused this error and then took the time to notify me of my mistake. They have other things they are working on and so rather than taking yet MORE time to write me a custom response, they used a template to concisely and consistently convey the necessary information to me about my mistake. I am going to use this as a learning point and thank this user for bringing it to my attention.

Again, we all make mistakes. This was far from a major one (I've made Template errors that broke literally tens of thousands of pages with one click of the mouse, see WP:TROUT for my reward). I hope that you will learn from this. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We operate on different parts of the project Zackmann. I am new, you are right. All I requested from you, and I didn't know you were leaving another comment, I'll put that down to me not being psychic (this a self-jab by the way, not directed at you) - was a diff. I've had a few interactions with editors before that have left me feeling quite stung, and I wonder... how could I have done that differently? I can imagine, being on that part of the project, you run into many, many cite errors and probably get sick of the sight of them. I am the same with unreliable sources at NPP, trust me, it gets old fast.

I have a preference for leaving a message detailing exactly what the issue is, rather than a template, which in many instances can be more vague. We prefer different ways of doing things, and I respect that.

I think our tenure on Wikipedia is, for the most part, irrelevant. We're both just people who are trying to make the best digital encyclopaedia possible. In this case, I messed up. I've had little sleep recently as life has been quite busy. Whilst I am a bit more rested now, I am annoyed with myself that I continue to keep making silly mistakes like this. As you saw, my talk page had become a bit of a posting ground over last 48 hours. I allowed myself to get momentarily annoyed and I directed it at you, when the fault was with me. I am genuinely sorry for doing that.

The quote from the bottom of your reply actually resonates quite strongly with me. That is a very fair statement to make, and I will absolutely keep this in mind in the future. I was genuinely preparing myself for a rinsing from your reply, but I am glad we have been able to resolve this.... as best as possible. I have no hatred toward you or anything, I don't function that way. This is a slap in the face for me to genuinely focus more when editing and not keep making silly mistakes like the ones I have recently. 11WB (talk) 06:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said to many editors of late, we live and we learn. You are doing great work. Keep it up. This is a tiny bump in the road. Thank you for hearing what I had to saying and for understanding the spirit in which I said it. Moving forward... Feel free to reach out if you ever need help on anything. I tend to focus most of my efforts on the technical side of things... Spending a lot of time on Infoboxes and related modules, but don't hesitate to post here if you have question, need guidance, or come across a funny joke.

Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my jokes are rather unfunny, or as they more commonly known as, dad jokes. I think I have actually seen you around the project by name before. I hope you didn't take offence to my immediate archiving of my user talk page. In that precise moment I had a vision of our conversation genuinely going super sour. I never intentionally cut off conversations, I felt it was best to deal with the cite error and then try and resolve our initial interaction after the fact. To quickly comment on your user count, I don't think I will likely ever reach over 300K edits in my entire lifetime. Your commitment to the project is an incredible achievement, so I can only congratulate you on that. Thank you for the first part of your reply by the way, I definitely needed to hear that, October has been a challenging month both onwiki and off. My knowledge of code, as you've probably realised now, is.... non-existent. I don't actually use the visual editor, I prefer the older text based one. I will make sure to make use of preview in future, as it is something I often forget to do or just don't do in favour of just hitting publish!

I will keep you in mind if I run into issues with anything code related in the future. I'm also familiar with @Novem Linguae, who is one of the maintainers over at the new pages patrol. I have the deepest of respect for the work coders do to make the lives of editors easier. It is a true gift. 11WB (talk) 07:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We all do our part. Keep chugging away! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every Stranger's Eyes, Roger Waters Song/Single Cover!

I saw that you added the infobox image for the Roger Water's song, The Pros and Cons of Hitch Hiking (song), and I was wondering if you can you please add the single cover for this Roger Waters song from the same album:

Every Stranger's Eyes

I'm not able to add images, long story.

You can find a high quality image for the vinyl single 7 inch cover here on eBay:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/165404799510

And the cover image for the single is also found here at Discogs, yet the eBay image is a better quality in my opinion:

https://www.discogs.com/master/524187-Roger-Waters-Every-Strangers-Eyes?srsltid=AfmBOopLwE0S4vttZrHLM4NfSBZowQiKyFY5T50clPEMGBf0EYgz-8kC

If you can help, thanks and cheers! Eric Carpenter (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For constantly cleaning up all the errors the rest of us leave behind :) GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 05:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenLipstickLesbian: Thanks yo! Keep up your great work! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]