User talk:Joeyconnick/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Discussion on Talk:Nicholas Hoult

Hey Joeyconnick! I'm writing to notify you that I responded to the discussion you opened. The bot archived an older discussion shortly after my response, so I wanted to make sure you didn't miss it.

That aside, I also wanted to bring to your attention that Zac Efron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), the very last article you edited, contained the subject's dating history in the "personal life" section. I thought I'd bring this to your attention in case you wanted to apply the "the well-established consensus that we don't list people's dating histories" on that article. Cheers! KyleJoan^talk 06:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

"Highway (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Highway (upcoming film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 5 § Highway (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Quote templates

Template:Quote box is being used correctly at Patriation. The guiding text for the template itself says, "this template can be used for block quotations (long quotes set off from the main text)" The quote at Patriation is supposed to be off from the main text; it contains words associated with the subject of the adjacent article text, but does not form part of the article text. Only if the quote was meant to form part of the article text would one use Template:Blockquote or <blockquote>. ₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, the opening documentation says This template can be used for block quotations (long quotes set off from the main text). However, this use is not advised in articles. The Manual of Style guidelines for block quotations recommend formatting block quotations using the {{Blockquote}} template or the HTML <blockquote> element, for which that template provides a wrapper. [emphasis mine]

Is "this use is not advised in articles" unclear? —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Looking (TV series)

I'm finishing up watching the show now and wanted to revise the section on Doris. I definitely found the use of the term "partner" confusing. She and Dom dated when they were teens and I've never heard the term "partner" applied to teenagers. I've only ever seen it used for adult couples (usually those who live together and have merged finances, etc, but are unmarried). In addition, the term "partner" is most commonly applied to same-sex couples. Since they were a boy/girl couple, but Dom is gay and now out, I thought it was important to clearly state that they dated before he came out, when they were both very young. I think this information is far more important to understanding their character dynamics than the information about her father and mother, which could much more easily be deleted, since it's mostly irrelevant to the overall show. The fact they they were boyfriend and girlfriend once is kind of key to their relationship. Jamesluckard (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Sort template

Hey! I saw your edit in Sarah Paulsons filmography about sorts documentation not allowing, where does it say that? I may be missing it but I use “sort” often so I dont wanna keep using it if its not allowed. Let me know, thanks! LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello...

{{Template:Sort}} says This template should be avoided. Table sort keys are best defined using the data-sort-value attribute, like so: | data-sort-value="Doe, John" | John Doe. Please see WP:SORT § Specifying a sort key for a cell for details. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Barnstar 2023 Canada

The Canadian Content Award Awarded for all the edits you do to maintain the feature articles status of the Canada article for the past decade. Your contributions are greatly appreciated!

Moxy- 00:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Moxy, thank you for this! Sorry it's taken me to long to acknowledge! —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Finch station

Bro you need to let me put in the Newtonbrook Plaza Demolistion reason. Its real, Go search that up yourself GM682012 (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Nah "bro" I don't... you're the one making an addition, so you need to make sure it's sourced verifiably. "Because I say so!" is not how Wikipedia works, nor is "you do the work for me". —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I get it now GM682012 (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Depiction of 2nd paragraph of "Death"

Thank you for your good contribution on the page of Jonathan Brandis. I'd like to clarify my question about the current description on the 2nd paragraph of "Death". As the source of its depiction, PEOPLE's article is mentioned.

In the wiki's article, it's written that "had been depressed about his extended career lull" but the original PEOPLE's article said "was depressed about his extended career". Those two are different in meaning.

Similarly, in wiki's article, it's written "Brandis began drinking heavily" but the original PEOPLE text said "he drank heavily". Those two are also different in their meaning. Plus, from the original PEOPLE text, we cannot know whether he was drinking heavily repeatedly or it's only one-time. If it's a repeated behavior, it should have written "He had drank".
Additionally, from the original PEOPLE article, we cannot know whether his heavy drinking had something to do with " Hart's War". Of course, it's not written whether it's before or after " Hart's War".
Anyway, we cannot write "He began drinking" from the source.
About this, what we can write in wiki is "When he drank heavily, he said he was going to kill himself".

Besides, in the original PEOPLE article, there are depictions such as "Brandis seemed to take it in stride when his career cooled in the late ’90s.","no one, it seems, took him seriously enough" and the like. We can also add these information because they were from the same source.

The word "career setback" contradicts the depiction of the last paragraph of the source. I hope your consideration for the revise of the depiction on the part.--ローズヒップ (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Joeyconnick!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

scarborough RT

I disagree your opinion that the derailment should not be included per NOTNEWS. The spirit of the guideline is related to too much detail, relevancy and notability of individual articles. Applying WP:NOTNEWS to omit an relevant event in this article is not appropriate as the derailment is not a routine event. SYSS Mouse (talk) SYSS Mouse (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I added Series dates to Madam Secretary SD

As a courtesy, I wanted to let you know that I added the duration of the series to the SD. I used a different format than my attempt in December, which you reverted with courtesy. In the eight months since, it seems that TV series air years are becoming a standard part of the SDs, in a closing parenthetical. That approach appeals to me a lot, in terms of utility for our readers. If you disagree, perhaps there's room for two Talk discussions: one on the Madam Secretary page, and one somewhere else, for general protocol development and evolution. Would that be in Punch Bowl? Please alert me if you decide to take any action on this, so that I may weigh in as appropriate. I have very limited bandwidth for WP, but one of the things I focus most on is the SD universe. THANKS! Left Central (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Emily VanCamp

Hi, I just saw your recent edit on Emily VanCamp in which you changed an edit back from fifth season to fifth-season, but if you look at Hilary Duff, there is a section which says tenth season instead of tenth-season. Can you please explain why you did this edit, cause I think fifth season looks better than fifth-season. 2001:569:507E:FB00:1912:E9E9:E2B8:EFD9 (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I did it because of grammar... it's a compound adjective happening before the noun. It's not about what one editor thinks "looks better". See MOS:HYPHEN, point 3. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but I don't know how it applies here in this case. 2001:569:507E:FB00:1912:E9E9:E2B8:EFD9 (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

What is there to see? It's the finale of the fifth season, so it's the fifth-season finale. "Fifth" is modifying "season", not "finale". —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh ok, I think I understand now. 2001:569:507E:FB00:1912:E9E9:E2B8:EFD9 (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

👍 —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

CAHSR removal of hypertext links

Why would you remove significant links to data sources? THIS IS HYPERTEXT! It is meant to provide a quick and easily accessible entry to the facts cited in the source material! Just putting the source name in italics in NO WAY is a suitable replacement.

It might be arguable that subsequent hypertext links should be removed to reduce file size, but I see NO justification for removing the very FIRST reference.

Finally, if you DO remove the hypertext link, you AT LEAST must provide some sort of specific reference that is easily accessible, as in a footnote citation.

So, I think you are wrong in several ways doing this.

I also think this is just stylistic bias on your part. For me, I don't mind seeing a hypertext link in the text, since in no way does it make my reading or understanding in any way worse.

I want to see more justification on this issue. Robert92107 (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:EL. That's the "justification" and it's far more than "stylistic bias"—it's an actual Wikipedia guideline.

And no, the onus is not on the person making the article better meet our guidelines to convert these all to footnote citations. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Robert92107 This part of the WP:EL policy is relevant.

>The burden of providing th[e] justification [for including external links] is on the person who wants to include an external link. Mason (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

(1) I objected to the person doing an actual loss of significant data. In my opinion, the civil thing to do was to either notify the person doing the original research/writing (me) of what should be done, or to change just ONE occurrence and notify them (me) of the policy. I had to re-research all the deleted URLs and put them back in the other format. I think it was rude, and it definitely wasted my time!

(2) The person doing the deletion also mis-characterized the "Further research" subsection as being part of the main article. It is actually NOT a part of the main article, but a reference section which by its nature points to external links. Hence, I've renamed it "Further reading (external links)". Yes, this whole thing could be removed to "External links", but I intentionally included more descriptive text than is normally in External links, so I'm sure that someone would have objected to that! Robert92107 (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

(3) Since all the person doing the "correcting" did was eliminate source data, it actually left the article in a WORSE STATE that before! While he objected to the format, he actually left the article with just the names of the references, with NO actual reference! Thus, the article was changed into a string of assertions without ANY ACTUAL USABLE CITATIONS! It would have been up to the reader to try to find the actual data source themselves! To my mind, THIS WAS HIGHLY IMPROPER!!!

Now you may disagree with my points, but I was shocked and offended by this person's cavalier treatment of actual data! So, I had to clean up the MESS that they'd left the article in! Robert92107 (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Annie Wersching

The f*ck kind of "third-party source" d'y'want, Bro? I'm cit'n' the damn episode itself! 68.33.244.13 (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Here: https://decider.com/2023/02/16/fans-praise-star-trek-picard-annie-wersching-tribute/

And here: https://blog.trekcore.com/2023/02/star-trek-picard-review-the-next-generation/

And here: https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2023/02/17/star-trek-picard-for-annie-wersching-tribute-explained/

Here too: https://trekmovie.com/2023/02/16/review-star-trek-picard-sets-an-intriguing-new-course-with-the-next-generation/ 2601:152:97E:1660:D838:F1A5:89D5:749F (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

So, Bro, ru gon' actually comment on my response(s) or ru gon' hide behind a WP post? 2601:152:30C:DD7:88F7:A662:68B3:D2A9 (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

¿...Bro...? 68.33.244.13 (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

September 26th edits

Hi, I noticed on your six September 26, 2023, edits for List of Everwood Episodes, you didn’t change my edits; your edits are exactly the same as mine. Just wondering why your edits are the same. Mselmast Mselmast (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Your edits used curly quotes. We shouldn't use those per MOS:CURLY so I replaced them with straight quotes.

If you check my edit, you can clearly see what was replaced: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Everwood_episodes&diff=prev&oldid=1177216114 —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I did not know that curly quotes are not allowed.

Mselmast Mselmast (talk) 04:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome! —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Joeyconnick :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Date formatting

I think the date formatting standards pertains to how the date appears to the reader rather than how it is coded internally. I did not see any prohibitions in Template:Cite web for the df parameter or in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Both "cite web ... |accessdate=2023-12-31 |df=mdy-all" and {{as of|2023|12|31|df=US}} present "December 31, 2023" to the reader. Are both prohibited? If so, where is the prohibition documented? Please advise. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Toronto Subway Feedback

Hello, I see you reverted my map additions on the Toronto Subway lines for reason of "Not a good location for this"/"Needs to be better integrated". Where would you recommend I place it instead, and do you have any other feedback that can help me? Commotatoes (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, it seems like mapframes are mainly meant to be used in infoboxes. Based on Wikipedia:Mapframe maps in infoboxes and seeing as there's no {{Mapframe}} capabilities that have been added to {{Infobox rail line}}, I don't think they should be added to the line articles. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I am confused. Are you saying the geographical maps should not be added into the articles? If maplink is not used, what should be used instead? I apologize, i am not experienced in Wikipedia. Commotatoes (talk) 04:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

South Asian Canadians and redundant categories

Hello!

Regarding your edit with comment How is this not an ethnic group in Canada?, please note that article South Asian Canadians is already in Category:South Asian diaspora in Canada, which is itself inside Category:Ethnic groups in Canada. Per guideline WP:SUBCAT, articles should be placed in the most precise category, they do not need to be also placed in all of the former's parent and grand-parent categories, as that would be redundant. Place Clichy (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay... would be great if you could note "already in subcat(egory) next time. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Reverting Mississauga Fire, Toronto Fire, etc.

Hi Joey,

I am going to be straight and frank with you here. I don't care how much experience you have editing wikipedia pages or how much you care about adhering to guidelines. That is your concern, not mine. What I do care, is you undoing my revisions and reverting the pages back to outdated information. I have helped shaped these pages over the years (different IPs) and now all of a sudden you come along, claiming my recent revisions as unsourced. Sure, I admit I did not provide guideline-adhering citations (I would if I could), but you could simply fact check my work for yourself. I have been fire buffing for many years and have countlessly provided information corroborated by various sources, including department staff. I'm sorry I can't do things the way you like, but when you have knowledge from first and second hand experience with a particular subject or matter, you just make do with it.

67.71.98.109 (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Line 1 Yonge–University and Millennium Line route diagram templates

Hello, I've noticed that you reverted my route diagram template colour editions for Line 1 Yonge–University and the Millennium Line, which I agree with. That being said, would the usage of a darker colour set, probably either saffron or golden fix the issue? If not, that's fine. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi OrdinaryScarlett... I usually use https://wave.webaim.org/ to check colours and aim for the WCAG AAA level. With the diagrams, it's a bit trickier because the website looks at text colour vs. text background colour, but I used a colour-picker and input the values manually in the site's "Foreground Color" and "Background Color" boxes. So if saffron or golden are sufficiently dark, that would work. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Awesome! The two sets are  (STR saffron) and  (STR golden). Set saffron uses #FFAB2E for open segments and #FFC969 for closed segments. Set golden uses #D7C447 for open segments and #E5DA8E for closed segments. Let me know if either of those colour sets work. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay I'll check. 🙂 —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmmn... both fail pretty dramatically. Contrast ratio of about 1.44 and it needs to be ~7 to meet WCAG AAA and ~5 to meet AA. Given that, I think leaving the "yellow" lines in black is probably the best choice. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that's a shame. Thanks for checking for me, though, it was worth a shot at least. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 05:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation/T&TRKFNF2022

I have created a sockpuppet investigation for T&TRKFNF2022 regarding the continuous addition of unconfirmed opening dates of various Toronto subway lines. You can respond here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/T&TRKFNF2022. Thanks. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi! :) Thanks for this edit [1]. Was a mistake on my part. I process lots of information each day and I do get tired at work so I apologize. Timur9008 (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Grammar spell check

If you have time and are interested looking for a grammar spell check at the Canadian peacekeeping article. Moxy- 18:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Moxy... did a few passes. Only saw minor things that needed changing—thanks as always for your contributions! —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much again for reviewing my work. Moxy- 01:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I've done some more additions and ask for a ga review... a quick review from you if you will appreciate it. Moxy🍁 19:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Done! —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Question about MOS changes

Hi JoeyConnick, thanks for fixing the dates on the article HSBC Canada! I have a question though or something I'd like to point out. I inserted some of the sources via the visual editor, and it seems like it's messing with the date formatting. Is there any workaround to this? Thanks and have a good day! WizardGamer775 (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry... I don't see any date formatting issues. Can you give a specific example? —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is the diff with your script assisted date correction: [2]. The date format I originally used was automatically generated by the Visual Editor. WizardGamer775 (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah... so the visual editor (def not my fave way to edit Wikipedia) defaults to yyyy-mm-dd (e.g. 2024-03-31) format. That's not a problem. The script adds:

{{Use mdy dates|date=[date]}}

to the article, which means any |date= or |access-date= etc. parameter in a reference renders their dates in mdy (mmmm d, yyyy; e.g. March 31, 2024) format.

It just also changes the underlying wikicode to reflect the chosen date format too. Unnecessary but I like it for consistency. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for clarifying it! WizardGamer775 (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

TV seasons

Whatever the naming convention for TV seasons has become, articles cannot be moved into or left sitting in redlinked categories that don't exist to have things filed in them. If categories are being moved, then they need to be moved first with articles being moved to the new category second, and not the obverse — I literally had to deal with three dozen redlinked "Television series season X episodes" redlinks on Special:WantedCategories today alone, which is three dozen more than there should have been. But since that report is going to update tonight, I couldn't just leave them sitting redlinked, which means the only possible solution to any redlink was to restore the category at its current location regardless of what renaming might take place in the future.

So if you're moving categories, then move the category first and then the articles second, not vice versa — and since that was done wrong the first time and I didn't make any mistakes, don't be thwacking me over the head with dozens of "your edit has been reverted" notifications, either. Fix it without the revert button, and I'll be reporting it to WP:ANI as disruptive and uncivil behaviour if I get any more of those wagged in my face. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi... I think you have mistaken what happened. I moved a single category and then the articles that had been in it. So at most you would have gotten one "your edit was reverted" notification based on my actions. Maybe other people did similar things and sent more notifications your way but that's not on me.

And of course, you could have just moved the categories yourself when you saw that others had edited the season-related categories of various articles amidst a lot of TV-related renames happening, instead of undoing a bunch of other people's work, which no doubt might have generated a lot of revert notifications for them. I also question whether the sky would truly have fallen if you had left the red-linked new categories alone for a short period until people got around to moving them.

Jumping right to "I'm going to report you!" is also not a great look, especially for an admin—hardly going by AGF. Especially since I did move the category first and then update the categories on the articles in question. It was other people, in the midst of moving the articles to the new naming convention, who had changed those articles' categories first without moving the categories... which, as far as I can tell, is not a crime and is not against any particular guideline. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Les Misérables, defaultsort issue

Hi. You've reverted my edit on Les Misérables (2012 film), thus reinstating the problem I fixed. If you check Category:Films based on Les Misérables, you'll see the 2012 film now appears - again - as the first of the films, with all the earlier ones coming later. Clearly, this is chronologically indefensible. We need to change the defaultsorts of all the other articles, or fix just this one. My solution was the most parsimonious one. If you insist on technical correctness, you must now do the work with all the other articles. Or reinstate my edit. Your choice. Over to you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

If the wrong category sorting because of shitty DEFAULTSORT values on a handful of other articles offends you so much, feel free to fix them. But mangling a DEFAULTSORT value just so it sorts "properly" in a particular already-broken context because other articles are clearly using the wrong DEFAULTSORT values is ridiculous, as is then coming to my talk page and ordering me about with your "you must now do the work" edict.

Please also note that I am apparently not the only one who understands how to do DEFAULTSORT properly. Are you gonna go attack that editor and order them around too because they're not using your broken format? —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I caused any offence. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Droop quota

Joey, we have opposed each other in editing of the STV article. (I am 2604...) but think you and I might have arrived at a collegial relationship.

I am having getting truth across in the Droop quota article. limelike curve... seems adamant that Droop quota is votes/(seats plus 1). But Droop himself and H-B himself said it is votes/(seats plus) plus 1, or at least anything greater than votes/(seats plus 1).

I don't know what to do as he or she repeatedly reverts my edits that are meant to try to get truth in the article. he or she even has taken out direct quote of Droop's own writing. as shown in the history and in my comments in the talk section.

limelike... has also just now edited STV article to say that STV is not sometimes called PRCV, but that change is wrong as STV is clearly sometimes called PRCV.

Tom 2604:3D09:8880:11E0:0:0:0:7044 (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I recommend you start a discussion on the article's talk page and include the edits you find problematic. Then others can weigh in and the editor who made the changes will need to provide their rationale for them. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Short films and recurring roles on television

Hi Joeyconnick, I've noted your response to my edit on the Daniel Doheny article about short films and their need for citations or their own articles (there are a large number of actor articles without either of them that I've seen so far, so am curious about the process); could you kindly direct me to the MOS guidelines on this as I couldn't find it mentioned within "MOS Film? Or is this outlined elsewhere? Can I ask why Doheny's 2012 film Hart Attack: First Gear has neither a citation or an article but has been retained in the table?

On recurring roles on television, how is it determined that actors are in such a role? Is there a minimum episode count or something? Many thanks. Mmberney (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mmberney,

Thanks for your questions. First, I should note that many, many... really very many pages exist at Wikipedia that aren't necessarily following guidelines, so it's not surprising you may see some filmographies that include uncited short films without their own articles added by enthusiastic editors who aren't necessarily aware of the various guidelines we ought to be following.

Basically not listing short films is a result of WP:NFSOURCES: short films are unlikely to have received much, if any, coverage in independent reliable sources. If they have, great! Those can be cited and the film can be included. If said short film has an article, then the article itself should include suitable sources, so the short film can be included on that basis... I guess citing one or more of those sources in the filmography table could also be done but I myself wouldn't fault someone for not doing so.

Full-length films, by contrast, generally would have received more coverage, so by default they are left in even if they don't have an article or sources aren't provided for them.

There's also a WP:INDISCRIMINATE argument to be made that we don't need, as a general readership reference, to provide exhaustive filmographies of every single actor.

Recurring status in television series: ah yes, a grey area for sure. While there's a clear definition for main roles (actors listed in the main credits—usually these are title credits), for recurring it's a rule of thumb. For most, it's 3 or 4 appearances in a season or more, although that coalesced when (US TV) seasons were more like 20 or 22 episodes, not, as they sadly are frequently now, 13 or 8 or even 6. I would say for miniseries and short seasons, the bar for inclusion might drop as low as 2 (say 2 out of 4, 2 out of 6). Certainly a non–main cast actor appearing in most or all of season's episodes would count as "recurring". So in nearly all cases, if someone is listed as "Guest role" (rather than "Recurring role"), their episode count should not be ≥4.

If there's disagreement, people can discuss with other engaged editors at the TV series' Talk page and come to consensus. Or discuss at WT:WikiProject Television.

Hope that helps! —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Compass card hatnote

I left a message on Talk:Compass card (British Columbia). Let's discuss there. –DMartin 22:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

Hi,

@Joeyconnick: Regarding treating it in sentence case, according to MOS:LISTCASE, lowercase is best reserved for glossary entries where it is important to convey whether something is usually capitalised or not. Also it is not a complete sentence. So, does this not apply to the situation? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

No... check out role descriptions for nearly all filmographies... they are sentence case, not all lowercase. These are not glossary entries, so even if LISTCASE applied (and I would argue it doesn't, as a table is materially different way to present information than a list), Use sentence case by default for list items, whether they are complete sentences or not. Sentence case is used for around 99% of lists on Wikipedia. Title case (as used for book titles) is not used for list entries. applies.

Also rendered in sentence case are the entries in the frequent "Notes" columns.

Whether something is a complete sentence or not in a table cell has absolutely zero bearing on whether you capitalize it. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick Doesn't capitalising the profession confuse the reader? According to MOS:FILMCAST, it should not be capitalised to distinguish between the character name and the job when used in place of the character name. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick Since you don't have an opinion on this, I think it would be a good idea to start a discussion. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

In what way don't I have an opinion? What led you to that determination? Because I took more than 12 hours to reply to you?

No, it doesn't confuse the reader. Why are you making problems that don't exist? Cell data should be consistently rendered in sentence case. Period. There's no distinction between a character name and a role where someone is credited as a generic e.g. "The nurse" or "Officer" etc. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Compromise

I think we need to come to a consensus on the Escape Room conflict. The height she fell is fatal, but the second movie’s original version shows that she’s available. So we need to compromise on this. HiGuys69420 (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

No, we don't... status quo is that if you watch the first movie, the story is she died. The fact they retconned that occurrence doesn't change how we summarize the first movie. The summary for the sequel explains "surprise! she didn't die!"

This description has persisted for years... because it's accurate. One person not agreeing does not require a new consensus. There is a consensus which is time tested. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

k so what's our consensus? HiGuys69420 (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I meant agreement? Is it basically keep it as it is and is it okay if I add an efn to the sequel article stating like "As depicted in Escape Room (2018)"? HiGuys69420 (talk) 05:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)