User talk:Joeyconnick/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Hi. Sorry, but I must point out that your edit summary was offensive to me. And, by the way, you added a redundant date. You do not need an access date when the date of publication is current. I've been writing excellent Wikipedia articles for more than 10 years, so please do not claim to "fix" something that was not broken. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

As someone who's been writing amazing Wikipedia articles for so long, then, I'm sure you are familiar with this part of WP:CITE: Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. That's great that you like your way better but it's totally irrelevant, so on that basis I'll be putting back in the templated version.

Oh and by the way, on top of where it says in WP:CITE that a web citation would generally include an access date because web-based content is likely to change over time, {{Cite web}} specifically says this about that parameter/information: For example, access-date is not required for links to copies of published research papers accessed via DOI or a published book, but should be used for links to news articles on commercial websites (these can change from time to time, even if they are also published in a physical medium). [emphasis mine] —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand WP:CITEVAR. It does not say that you should be offensive in your edit summaries. I'm afraid that you will not be able to persuade me that it is anything other than silly to put in an access date that is exactly the same as the date of publication. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Just a heads up: this actually wasn't a broken wikilink. The single brackets were used to paraphrase a statement within the quote. It originally said "POC", and I spelled it out instead. Thanks, though. -- James26 (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah sorry... I should have checked it more carefully. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I am wondering why you have been converting the REF dates, for example, from {{date|2017-05-13|mdy}} to May 13, 2017 even though the date template produces the same result, thus satisfying MOS:DATEFORMAT. A Wikipedia Help person actually had advised me on how to use the date template to produce mdy format specifically for a REF date. See User talk:TheTrolleyPole#REF date formatting. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm just using a script and it doesn't use the Date template. It does find and fix occurrences of misformatted dates in the body, though, and honestly I think using the date template for references is overkill. The only benefit of using {{date|2017-05-14|mdy}} vs. plain "May 14, 2017" is that it makes it relatively easy to change the date format if you want to... except this script, WP:MOSNUMscript, can do that quickly too, and "May 14, 2017" is arguably easier to read in the source than the templated version. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. If there are utilities to convert REF date formats, why does Toronto subway still use one convention (access date : ymd) and the line articles (e.g. Line 5 Eglinton) use another (access date : mdy)? The inconsistancy is one reason I use the date template. (Another is that my REFs usually have 3 dates where I type in one in ymd format and copy it to the other locations. Still another, is that I can convert an access date from ymd to mdy without retyping the date.) TheTrolleyPole (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I edited many of the TTC-related articles to follow mdy as that seems to be a fairly accepted "Canadian" format and most of them had a collection of very inconsistent date formats. However, Toronto subway had access-dates that were all or predominantly yyyy-mm-dd and as per MOS:DATERET, we are apparently supposed to maintain existing formats. I didn't think a strong argument could be made that everything in that article should be converted to mdy on the basis of it being all over the map, so I left it as is. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello there, if you are planning to change the reference in the election results template you'll have to do it to all of them so the templates are all consistent with one another. Jon Kolbert (talk) 06:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jon Kolbert: Please restore my change to Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Vancouver-West End that you reverted. First off, no, I myself personally do not have to go through and correct all the templates in that category. Accuracy and proper citation of sources trumps "consistency"—the version you reverted to lists the archive URL as the source for the information. The archive URL is not the source; it's an archive of the source, which is a document on the Elections BC website, and the citation should reflect that. The citation should also list the date of the actual source if it has one (which it does), not simply the access date. Finally, it should list the date of the archived version. The fact all other templates in that category may be consistently wrong in the same way (I haven't checked) is not any kind of argument for reverting to a less-correct version in this case, and the fact I corrected this one does not make me responsible for correcting any others—that's just not how Wikipedia works. I haven't "broken" anything by fixing this one case. Consistency is desirable, sure, but not at the cost of accuracy. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

It's okay to add in new series regulars for an upcoming season after they are announced. It happens to several TV shows on this wiki.Leviathan648 (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Cite templates are not "better" than manual citations and are not required, or even encouraged by WP:CITE. They are just a crutch developed to aid people who don't understand bibliographic citation. In fact, it states that "citation templates ... should not be added to articles without consensus." Likewise, WP:BUNDLING references is acceptable and often helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey there. I'm not looking to edit war or anything. But WP:BIDIRECTIONAL states that the linking should be bidirectional which means that the linking should go both directions. So although it doesn't specifically state that articles must include navboxes that include them, it must be to satisfy the definition. I'll leave it up to you to revert the edits to avoid 3RR. If you don't agree with me, we'll consult a 3rd party and that will solve it. Happy editing! DLManiac (talk) 06:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Well the Vaughan extension of the Yonge-University line isn't open yet either

Docolusanya (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why you are messaging me here and not on the article's talk page so other interested parties can chime in. Anyway, true, but that line is nearly complete and is scheduled to open at the end of this year, which puts it five whole years ahead of Line 5 and less than half a year away from completion. The TYSSE stations are nearly-complete structures. Plus in the existing map it's visually clearly it's a future thing. So really, it's just too early... and given past experience, it wouldn't be unusual for the Line 5 completion date to slip again. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Joey, thank you so much for contributing to Wikipedia! I am actually producing a podcast episode about unsung heroes, such as the people who go out of their way to contribute to the benefit of thousands of strangers. I'd love to include a short phone call with you where I'd just say thanks "in person." Let me know if that's something you'd be willing to let me do! Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aballstaedt (talk • contribs) 23:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain your thinking here? The two guidelines you linked to don't seem to discourage my changes (note that I "meant" to do this, since the calls to {{Cast list break}} are no longer necessary with the change to a definition list). MOS:LISTGAP doesn't seem to even be relevant, as my changes did not introduce any gaps. Definition lists are indeed discouraged in articles merely to bold or indent material, but that is not why I was using deflist formatting: the list arguably "defines" the roles being played, and as such can be seen as a genuine deflist. As for accessibility, unless deflists somehow inherently lack accessibility (not sure why that would be), I don't see the problem. Please explain. - dcljr (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi... sorry, I didn't take the time to fully look at what you'd done, which is my own fault. You're right: the way you've done it does not violate MOS:LISTGAP... I just assumed when I saw the ";" and ":" that you were doing the very common thing, which is where people mix "*" lists and then definitions done with ":" simply to get the visual formatting "right" without any care to the underlying data structure. But given MOS:TVCAST and MOS:BOLD, specifically In accordance with the Manual of Style guidance on boldface, actors and roles should not be bolded, nor should they be italicized. Lists should not include any forced line breaks unless a template designed for that purpose, such as {{Cast list break}}, is used. Follow correct syntax when compiling lists (including MOS:COLON)., definition lists are not allowed, which is why {{Cast list break}} exists.

I personally feel we should not be using {{Cast list break}} because it seems hugely kludgey to me and I don't understand why certain people insist on a linebreak instead of just:

• Actor name as Character name: a character who is love with Character X, lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Phasellus id purus sit amet libero iaculis ornare. Pellentesque vitae elementum metus. Donec egestas faucibus efficitur. In quis malesuada ex, sed porta erat. Vestibulum sed placerat tellus. Suspendisse elit nisl, viverra sit amet rutrum nec, pellentesque nec dolor. Morbi mollis arcu nec tempus finibus. Duis laoreet risus eu velit mattis eleifend. Quisque ultricies ex at mauris pellentesque, ut egestas lacus tempor. Nulla eu ante iaculis, hendrerit metus quis, dictum enim. Nulla vel odio elementum, viverra metus et, consectetur tellus. Pellentesque dapibus ligula libero, id vulputate erat molestie a. Etiam sed turpis nisi. In iaculis felis sit amet eros ullamcorper condimentum. Morbi eu neque viverra sapien venenatis varius.

On top of that, people arbitrarily decide when the character/actor description is too long, so some characters with a short description get no linebreak and then others do get one, but again with zero guideline as to when the linebreak becomes "desirable"/applicable. It seems to me the simplest solution is no linebreak ever. Use either the colon or the comma, and then have the description on the same line as the character and actor names, no matter what.

Sooooo... given I don't get to set Wikipedia policy myself, I think you'll need to go back to the {{Cast list break}} method or someone who is committed to MOS:TVCAST guidelines will likely revert you. I'll stay out of it, though... my apologies again for not realizing you were actually using definition lists properly! —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I had already reverted myself when I posted here. And while we're giving personal opinions, I think the current way looks amateurish and hard(er) to parse. But if that's what the guidelines say, then I'm not going to press the issue. Yet Another guideline I think is stupid and misguided… - dcljr (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, I lied about not pressing the issue… [grin] - dcljr (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice work. -- 109.78.206.252 (talk) 03:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Greetings and felicitations. I apologize for taking so long to bring this up, but I noticed that you reverted my edit to The Blacklist (TV series)‬ with the reason "Shoudl be a hyphen as post is modifying the term that follows." Per MOS:ENDASH, en dashes are used "[i]nstead of a hyphen, when applying a prefix to a compound that includes a space" with the example:

• ex–Prime Minister Thatcher;   pre–World War II aircraft

Since "Super Bowl" is an established compound, I consciously used an en dash instead of a hyphen. — DocWatson42 (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow... that's a bizarre rule. But you're right and I've changed it back. My apologies for not realizing you were following the existing style guide. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, both for changing it back and your apology. ^_^ If it helps, you can think of the en dash in these cases as a super hyphen. Note that The Chicago Manual of Style also recommends that it be used in the same way for suffixes applied to compounds (see chap. 6, section 6.80), but that usage has not (yet) been adopted by Wikipedia. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Following WP:BRD protocol, a discussion about your recent edits has begun at Talk:Amanda Righetti#Filmogrphy. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Joey, just wanted to drop a quick note about this. There definitely is precedent for listing a specific episode like this, esp. when somebody is credited as "main cast" only in the pilot – now sometimes it's done parenthetically, and probably more often it's done as a 'note', but either way should be acceptable.

In addition, pretty much every "Guest cast" list that doesn't list the episode that that guest castmember appeared in (and doesn't include an inline source) fails WP:V, and should actually be removed – e.g. this kind of thing is good, and this kind of thing is not. As a project, WP:TV really needs to start encouraging (if not outright requiring) the former, and rejecting instances of the latter... Just my $0.02. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your own particular interpretation of how the TV Project should function and how TV articles ought to be written and referenced. As I think has been clearly established by now, you and I (and several others) differ in our interpretations of the listing of guest, recurring, and main cast. You coming here and speaking as though your viewpoint is the de facto way TV articles must be done will not get you my support on that front, however. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I noticed you deleted the paragraph stating "it was recommended that stations on Line 5 Eglinton LRT should be given unique names" from the Oakwood station (Toronto) article. I agree; I just was not bold enough to do the deletion myself. However, the paragraph appears to be in every Line 5 station article. Perhaps, all copies should be deleted -except- for those stations where the paragraph applies (e.g. Bayview LRT station / Leaside station) with some extra wording to give context. Would you agree? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@TheTrolleyPole:... yeah, those one-sentence paragraphs throughout most of the Line 5 station articles really bug me so I thought I'd take the opportunity to get rid of this one, at least. It really feels like it was a way to pad the Line 5 station articles when whey were first being put together because you're right, other than for ones where that recommendation came into effect and was used as a rationale to pick a different final station name, it seems pretty irrelevant; it belongs more in the Line 5 Eglinton article itself because it was a general recommendation for the entire project. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Before I proceed to do a mass change, could you please review the changed wording in Mount Pleasant station (Toronto) (removal of unique names paragraph) and Leaside station (rewording of unique names paragraph). I am also updating/standardizing the first sentence as needed. Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing... will do slightly later today. Thanks for your efforts on this. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@TheTrolleyPole: Okay I've made some edits for flow. Looks good overall. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

For surface stops, I have made a separate version of the first sentence. Please see Birchmount stop. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@TheTrolleyPole: Does it say "to be constructed" because construction on the stops hasn't begun? Oh... you removed the neighbourhood and cross streets... was that intentional? I don't think it's crucial info but if it there's, we could probably leave it in as it's a bit more "understandable" than simply listing the coordinates. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I accidentally deleted the neighbourhood info and have restored it. As for the construction of the stops themselves, the removal of the centre median just started this summer; so, it will be a while before we see construction of the surface platforms themselves. I receive monthly newsletters on Crosstown construction, and nothing has yet been mentioned of platform construction at surface stops. However, I could use "under construction" instead of "to be constructed" if you prefer. Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It's fine by me with "to be constructed". I was just curious. Thanks for your work on all this! —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello.

In the Eglinton station article, I noticed you eliminated the "nearby landmarks" section moving its contents to the intro saying: "per WP:PARAGRAPH, single sentences do not generally deserve a section heading". I looked up WP:PARAGRAPH and it said that single sentence paragraphs "should be used sparingly" and did not say anything against one-paragraph sections. I like to avoid intros that are cluttered with secondary detail that belongs elsewhere. A number of other Line 1 station articles already have a "nearby landmarks" section with a brief description. I think that remains a good idea. May I restore that section? I'm fine with all the other changes especially the deletion of the "tourist advice"; I should have deleted it myself instead of moving it. Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@TheTrolleyPole: sorry I was thinking of MOS:PARAGRAPH re: not giving single sentences their own sections. Specifically: Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading. I agree we don't want to clutter the lead... but I also think it's a toss-up between that and having tiny little sections. I put it there because it seems like it's related to its location... if it had been two or three sentences, or longer, I would likely have left it on its own as you had it.

But I don't feel super concerned about it one way or another, so feel free to revert. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

About your advice on filmography tables format regarding the Anna Kendrick article: thank you for your help, that was really kind of you! I noticed that you didn't reply to my reply, so I figured I'd post this here too. I definitely understand and agree with what you said, and I appreciate the detailed explanation. Perhaps "Editing" could be a suitable alternative to "Post-production", though I suspect that might be a bit too ambiguous. So do you think we should leave both "Filming" and "Post-production" unlinked, or should we only link "Post-production", or...? Weslam123 (talk | contrib) 07:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi,
I'm not really sure why you removed my edit. It is not "unnecessary" as you said as it could be important information for someone studying or is just curious about transportation in Metro Vancouver. There are also many other articles that list bus routes for cities in North America that reveal the garage the route runs out of (e.g. Chicago, Toronto, Montreal, etc.)Saltn'Pepper (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Saltn'Pepper: I'll reply on the article Talk page, so we can have the relevant discussion where others can easily follow.

Thanks. Saltn'Pepper (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Joeyconnick - Thanks, I appreciate the thank-you's you've sent me for my work on some of the This Is Us articles. (And you're welcome.)

I've been doing a lot of work on List of This Is Us characters, and could use some help, whether it's addition, revision, critique, etc. Thanks - I appreciate it. -- Bwefler (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome too! I'll take a look but I often find the "List of <blank> characters" articles get a little too fan-ish for me. Nothing against you—haven't even looked at this particular one—but yeah if you don't see me editing there, that's probably why. Maybe that's because most of teh articles I edit are for genre shows. The main articles tend to get more scrutiny so it's easier to say "but what about this guideline?" and get some backup. LOL —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

OK Thanks - It hasn't looked too fan-ish before, and I certainly don't want to make anything fan-ish. Any constructive critique would be useful. Thanks. -- Bwefler (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

And it seems like no one ever replies to what I put on the talk pages for these articles either. -- Bwefler (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding the border at The OA was not in error. Why the revert? — Film Fan 17:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Film Fan: I removed it because it wasn't doing anything (i.e. I wasn't seeing any border) and I couldn't find any documentation for {{Infobox television}} that lists that as a valid parameter or addition. What exactly was it supposed to do? I've never seen anyone try to pass a "|border" value as part of the infobox "|image=" parameter. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It does add a border. It makes a clearer distinction between lighter edges of the poster (the middle section) and the surrounding white. It's very subtle but makes a difference. If you want a clearer example of the border, see Wormwood (miniseries). — Film Fan 18:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow... that is super subtle... especially for The OA's poster. But okay. Oh, so it's just part of the specification for [[File:]]. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The edit you deleted was a 3 sentence quotation from what was published as a two page article which I read yesterday. I can bring it back with a link to the article by indicating that it was only a 3 sentence quotation, it would be useful to the article which currently has no Plot summary. You can verify this by looking at the link. This is the link here: [1]. Let me know what you think. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@ManKnowsInfinity: I guess you've seen by now someone else also reverted your quotation. I will admit that I'm not an expert in copyright but I am pretty sure having an entire section of an article be a substantial quotation (not talking about the relative size of quotation in comparison to its source but in terms of real length, as in it's 3 sentences long) is highly problematic. Also, if I'm not mistaken, we do plot summaries after the movie has been publicly released (specifically so that they can be done in someone's "own words" i.e. not a copyvio). Oh, here we go: WP:QUOTEFARM, specifically Overuse happens when ... the quotes dominate the article or section. In the Plot section you added, that was definite overusage. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

This is a person question and I should probably ask on a private e-mail but... When one speaks two languages (French and English), which language do you think in? Eschoryii (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I can only answer for me... I grew up with English as my mother tongue and learned French as an immersion student, so I think in English. However, towards the end of my immersion studies (after about 8 or 9 years), I did tend to slip into French for Math, since I had learned all of my Math in French rather than English (and while I spoke English at home, we didn't tend to have very extensive conversations about Math). So I would count in French in my head, stuff like that.

If someone is raised completely bilingual or multilingual, though (like from birth), then I have no idea what language they would think in. Probably a mix? —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I've just given this user a stern warning on their talkpage for their recent pattern of Hatnote and Template editing and the fact that their edits are requiring more time to clean up than they're worth. I suspect a real WP:CIR issue is at work here and if this continues then a block may need to be considered. At this point it's verging on disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 15:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: thanks for letting me know. It is definitely frustrating dealing with those overdone hatnotes. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Or, you could be targeting me. If you really did care about the page, you would take care of all "violations". The fact you chose to only focus on mine shows you have a problem with me, specifically. If you really are an editor, you should know better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMLink (talk • contribs) 01:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Joey, I did you one better, and shortened it to under 200 words. Now, do you want to admit you attacked me, and do your job by removing the other ones that break the rules, or should I do your job? And by the way, I will be reporting you for blatant targeting unless you can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you weren't attacking me. FYI, a good amount of proof would be you removing the other summaries that exceed 200 words.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MMLink (talk • contribs) 01:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@MMLink: you seem to still be missing my point. The fact I only removed your summary doesn't mean I am targeting you. That edit just happened to have been the most recent one that I had seen, and it was clearly outside of guidelines, so it warranted removing. Again, it is not my (or any other editor's) responsibility to fix the entire article. Maybe I didn't notice the other summaries were too long. Maybe I only had time to fix the one that was most recently added. Maybe it doesn't matter because the change I made improved the article and brought it closer to being in-guideline than it had been before.

You are more than welcome to attempt to report me for "targeting" you. Since I've only ever reverted one of your edits on one single Wikipedia article, and you seem to not know how to sign your contributions on Talk pages, and you also don't seem to realize that when I referred to "editors", I wasn't implying I had any special status since ANYONE who edits Wikipedia is an "editor", I don't suspect you will get very far. I haven't done anything but attempt to improve an article and then attempt to inform an either very new or very misled editor about how Wikipedia works. There's also this little thing called "innocent until proven guilty", so the idea that you think I need to prove anything to you is laughable at best.

You might also want to bone up on WP:AGF. The fact you took my revert of your edit, a revert for which I gave clear reasoning, as "evidence" of me "targeting" you says a lot more about you than it does about me. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: the "fix" you provided took all of one second. If one second was all the time you had, then I can only laugh. My edit, even at a glance, was just as long as the others. You could've chosen any of them. You chose mine. As far as you know, I'm new to Wiki editing. You could've simply given me a warning, along with linking me to WP:AGF. You chose not to do that. And I also find it hilarious that a place like Wikipedia, which promotes itself as the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, has such strict guidelines, or how much of a hardass you're being on a "newbie". -MMLink

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to The Good Wife (season 7) with the reason "TV by the Numbers is a website (aka work), *not* the corporate entity publishing said website." However, the title of Wikipedia article TV by the Numbers is not italicized, and is specifically that of the Web site, not its corporate parent (as stated in the article's opening paragraph). That is why I made the changes. —DocWatson42 (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@DocWatson42: Okay... but websites are also not corporations that are acting as publishers. So the proper parameter in the cite template would be |website=, which is a synonym for work. I'm not quite sure why it bothers some people so much that "website" is italicized in the cite template but my contention would be that it's better to be wrong in terms of formatting (and get someone to make changes to the cite template) than to be wrong semantically (where you're saying a work is something it most definitely is not, which is the publisher of said work; e.g. saying One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is Random House). If having a website name or domain name italicized is of concern, you could use {{noitalic}} to suppress the italics. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Joeyconnick. Hatnotes aren't meant to be general points to maybe related articles; See also sections are better for that. The question we need to ask is "what else might users seek under this title"? The Magicians (Grossman novel) is about as specific as you can get, and it's not likely a reader who uses that search term is looking for a different topic. Likewise with The Magicians (U.S. TV series), which anyway links prominently to the novel at several places at the top of its article. There is a cost to hatnotes—they take up prime real estate and disrupt the reader's experience. While that cost is frequently worth paying, I don't think it is in these cases. --BDD (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi BDD... I get what you're saying but I thought (from how I've seen them used and also WP:SIMILAR) that anything where the main article name (in this case, The Magicians) was the same or similar was worthy of a hatnote. Are you saying it's only if there's a non-disambiguated primary topic (e.g. The Magicians... except of course in this case that is a disambiguation page) that they should be used? If so, I get the impression that's not very well understood or taken as common practice within Wikipedia. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Generally, yes, that's my understanding. Other cases would be if a redirect to a title is likely to be confused with something else. I've seen editors with opinions on both sides of this. Note that WP:SIMILAR discusses articles with titles where "one is disambiguated and the other not". So while that might not explicitly support what I did, I don't think you can say it supports those hatnotes either. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there,

I was hoping you could help. I've never edited a page on wikipedia but I was wondering if there could be a section talking about the soundtrack to Dark on Netflix? I've also got a blog post that would be a great source to refer to. Is this allowed? Can you help?

Thanks,

Steve Steve McPherson (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Steve McPherson... MOS:TV, the Manual of Style for WikiProject Television, is going to be a good resource for you. In terms of examples, looks like on Big Little Lies they have a "Media" section with "Soundtrack" as a subsection. I've never added info about a show's soundtrack so I'm going to be of limited use but I can tell you that unfortunately, your blog can't be a source as it is user-generated content, and that's not considered a reliable source to use as reference for Wikipedia articles. However, if you have used 3rd party reliable sources for your blog content, then you could use those same sources when adding information to Wikipedia provided you cite them properly. Hope all those links help! —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI: More indications of 18-Jan-2018 as Colony S3 premiere, beyond the ones I previously listed: ( still listed as a Thursday show, and the online episodes for season 2 expire on Jan 12) Fandom reports "USA confirms" the date. Unfortunately it does NOT show up on USA schedule for that day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riventree (talk • contribs) 05:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Point taken about "guest/guests" in headers - thanks for that correction. Call me crazy, but I do still think that ref error needs fixing though. :) Jessicapierce (talk) 06:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Greatest Showman, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Variety and This Is Me (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Your English is impressive. Drogge (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Drogge: thank you for the barnstar! —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey there,

The release dates provided in the IMDb source can easily be verified by viewing the international trailers. The other additions are fairly self-explanatory improvements, wouldn't you think?

Looking forward to hearing from you, --Justthefacts9 (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Justthefacts9: You can't cite IMDb. Period. It is WP:UGC. And we don't list release dates for multiple markets/locations... we list the first release. Occasionally we list the first release and then the wide release for the country of origin. This is all in WP:FILMRELEASE and MOS:FILM. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: International release dates appear in the Black Panther article, for example. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:OTHER is not a valid reason to add the same thing to other articles. Those dates might be mentioned because they were particularly notable premieres, or because people thought it was noteworthy it opened in some countries before the release date in the country of origin. I think they could validly be removed on the basis of MOS:FILM. The dates you originally added are all just the normal release dates in a variety of countries, happen after the actual release, and Wikipedia is not a guide. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: WP:IAR. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: The additions were made to improve the article, not degrade it, wouldn't you agree? Yes, there may be some WP policies which some of the additions flow against, but WP policies are not carved in stone, there can be exceptions to these policies, and any policy can be ignored in order to improve an article in good faith. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand that spoilertv is not a reliable source. On the other hand, the question is how unreliable it can be? I don't think the information in this edit is likely to be untrue. So why remove it just because the source is less than ideal? Debresser (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Debresser: It doesn't matter whether the info is likely to be correct or incorrect: that is irrelevant and completely original research. It needs to be sourced properly or it gets tossed. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

That is a very formalistic approach. I adhere to a more realistic school of though, which holds that you are under no obligation to challenge material when it is obviously or likely true, just because it is not yet sufficiently sourced. I always recommend to tag statements first, alert some editors who might be interested in the subject, and see what improvements they come up with in time. That approach is in the long end in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Debresser (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I see you've amended the above page as per MOS:DAB. I was a little surprised as basically I had cut and pasted from other dab pages for similar ships and it is normal practice to specify the class as a clickable link - you can verify this by looking at other ships of these classes or indeed by looking at the dab pages for famous ships like HMS Dreadnought or HMS Hood. I note in the MOS:DAB there is a section which says the standard rules can be broken with good reason. I feel that this is such a case as evidenced by the multitude of editors who have done so on dab pages for ships. By merely specifying a type of ship is not good practice as ship designations have changed over the lifetime of a ship, firstly a Destroyer may be a 500 ton WW1 era torpedo boat destroyer or at the other extreme a modern 10000 ton guided missile destroyer or look at the change of usage of Frigate, secondly take a Black Swan class ship, built as sloops, title changed to escorts almost immediately after, rerated as frigates in 1948 and called destroyers when transferred to India. I therefore ask you to revert your edits so the page can be in continuity with other ship dab pages and provide the user with a better easier experience to identify the ship that they are looking forLyndaship (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree the DAB entries should indicate details about the ships (although ideally the disambiguation tags for the article titles would make it clear to people just from the links to the articles about the ships themselves) but there's no need for those details to be wikilinked when people can simply go to the actual article for the ship and find those details there, wikilinked where they should be. Links to ship class articles do not help disambiguate which ship is which, which is the entire purpose of a DAB page. WP:OTHER is not a reason to ignore the overarching MOS:DAB guidelines. If anything, any existing ship DAB pages should be brought into compliance with those guidelines, as local consensus doesn't overrule wider guidelines. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry being rather inexperienced in the ways of Wikipedia I'm not quite sure that I follow all of your explanation. As you raise your preference for all ship DAB pages to be brought into conformity with the MOS:DAB guidelines I would like this to be discussed on the wikiproject ships page. Can I just cut and paste our existing exchange there or is there a correct procedure to be followed? Lyndaship (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

[I increased the indentation on your last answer to better help following the thread.] I honestly am not invested enough to attempt to push it through all ship DAB pages as my experience has been that inertia tends to trump change on things like this, even if the change is appropriate. I don't generally edit anything to do with ships (other than a few BC Ferries-related pages) and I'm not going to expend energy on this as, ultimately, it's not the end of the world. If you feel it would be worth mentioning at the WikiProject, I would just link to this discussion using [[User talk:Joeyconnick#HMS Eglinton dab page]]—that would be more appropriate than cutting and pasting, probably. But despite my lack of desire to try to bring about wider change, I'm not going to revert my change on the Elginton DAB page because I am firmly of the belief that it's better to be more correct/in alignment with policy than it is to be more consistent (if what we're being consistent with is against policy).

But basically my argument is: DAB pages are to disambiguate articles, not to lead people to completely different topics (i.e. ship class articles in this case). It doesn't matter that many or even all other ship DAB pages "do it that way"... WP:OTHER clearly explains that just because it's done a particular way in one or more cases, it doesn't mean you can just ignore guidelines and policy. I.e. just because it's been done wrong somewhere else doesn't mean doing it wrong is fine. And if that were a valid way to argue a point, I am pretty sure I could point you to far more DAB pages where the guideline is respected and there is no extraneous linking in an entry.

And finally WP:CONLEVEL specifies that a subgroup collection of editors can't just decide they are going to ignore norms elsewhere... or certainly not without a very solid justification. The justification you gave (other than it's done that way on other ship DAB pages) is that if you don't mention the class or various classes of a ship, you can't disambiguate it properly. I agree that's true... but there's nothing that linking to an article about a particular ship class provides in terms of ability to disambiguate on a DAB page that couldn't be accomplished by simply listing the class. Linking to anything but the article being disambiguated is just a form of overlinking. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for spending so much time explaining the policies of Wikipedia to a newb like me. I agree that your argument is totally in line with the policies you have given. However I still feel that an exception is appropriate in this case. I will therefore link this conversation to the wiki ships page as you suggest partially in the hope that there is already some established exception of which we are both unaware. I do agree that all this is "small beer" in the greater scheme of things but I hope you can appreciate that when I feel something is not acting in he best interests of the users I should voice my concern. I note that you would have no objection if I simply stated the classes on the DAB page without linking them as this would conform to MOS:DAB only one link. I will not do this yet (I suspect you would have done this when you edited the entries initially if you thought it was a good idea) as I feel its a half way house and not the best answer. Thank you again for being so thorough and pleasant in our exchange Lyndaship (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:MOSSHIPS, WP:NC-SHIPS, and particularly, WP:SETNOTDAB apply. HMS Eglinton is a set index page (it is designated as such by the {{shipindex}} template). Per WP:SETNOTDAB, set indices are not DAB pages so the DAB rules do not apply. The {{disambiguation}} template should be removed. Ship-class links may be restored.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Trappist is correct, and I have reverted the changes. Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

You recently reverted my edit on X2 (film), but your explanation does not actually match the version you restored. You claim that "action thriller" is unsourced for this film (I did not check). Then why did you change the category from Category:2000s action thriller films to Category:Action thriller films? I am trying to clean up Category:Action thriller films, where several films were not placed in the decades-related subcategories. Dimadick (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dimadick: oops... sorry! Yeah, not sure how that is categorized as a thriller film. Fixed. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Joeyconnick! Is there a rule about changing colors on episodes section such as the background and line color? Can someone change the colors of the background and line color for a TV series just because he or she wants to change it? I am asking you because you seemed to know about the most updated rules on Wikipedia.Lbtocth (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lbtocth. I don't think I'm any kind of expert on the general rules of Wikipedia but I do have some experience with the MOS:TV guidelines at this point. There's a standard practice of matching an episode list's colours to the predominant colour for that season's promotional materials (like initially any teaser posters and ultimately the DVD/home media release covers) but there's no hard and fast rule. See here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Formatting. You'll note that it talks about "once established, don't change it". I early on in my editing career tried to change the season colours for Teen Wolf (2011 TV series) and was quickly reverted by a more established editor, even though my reasoning for the change was, in my opinion, superior to "match the DVD colours." You'll note at List of Teen Wolf episodes#Series overview that the colours for seasons 2, 3A, 3B, and 5A are all nearly indistinguishable from one another. List of Arrow episodes#Series overview provides another good example of how problematic the current way of choosing colours is. I feel it's far more important and useful for readers for the seasons in a season listing to be visually distinct from one another than for us to match arbitrary marketing choices (and this "matching" is often pretty subjective, if you ask me). This flawed method for determining season colours is also apparent if you check out the ratings graph at List of Teen Wolf episodes#Ratings, too. But WP:TV being what it is, if you want to attempt to change the colours for a season, I suggest you brace yourself for a lot of blowback and make sure you have a good justification for it. And be prepared to fail. Ultimately I gave up on trying to argue common sense in this area and just focused on changes I could make that weren't weirdly considered contentious that helped improve articles. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Joeyconnick. I am was going with the predominant color for that season's promotional materials and someone changed to a color that has nothing to do with the season. I often follow "once established, don't change it" to avoid editing war over the colour of templates.Lbtocth (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

on Jagmeet Singh. Should have checked first! Madg2011 (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

No worries! —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, per this and this: my title formatting has been challenged, you may want to participate in the discussion at Talk:Deadline Hollywood#Title style. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 14:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

What? Under the naming convention both of them should require disambiguation. The one in the town of Caledonia, Ontario would appear to be the format that would normally be searched for. What is the point of reverting my move of the one in Toronto to a clearer name, which is named after a local street? Are you just being argumentative? Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The other station is called "Caledonia railway station" as per WP:CANSTATION. Therefore "Caledonia station" (the Toronto entity's official name) needs no disambiguation (plus there are hatnotes in place in case anyone looking for the railway station arrives at the wrong place). This might be a better discussion to have at the article's Talk page so others can chime in. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

No. You are wrong. That's my point. Under CANSTATION they should both be named "Caledonia station" and require disambiguation. Most of the "railway station" articles have been moved. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: I disagreed with the change from "railway station" to "station", but now I'm trying to go along with it. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your feeling on the usage. However, the redundancy remains in that the pursuant sentence states that he "came out," eliminating the need for the adjective. In 2018, "openly" just makes a political statement. Compared to simply, "gay," it is insensitive language. PennyDreadful33 (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Joeyconnick, Do you know the link to the About No. of episode under 'Infobox television' part where it said should go by the latest episode number that was aired? I can't seemed to find it.-- Lbtocth 01:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lbtocth: I think what you want is mentioned in the documentation for {{Infobox television}}, for the |num_episodes= parameter. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I really appreciated it.-- Lbtocth 02:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I was on my way back to Wikipedia to undo it and saw your notification. I was updating some IMDb data for the film and noticed he was listed as Luke there as well which got me thinking why as he is referred to Luke and Lucas about 50/50. Beginning and ending parts of the film he's only referred to as Lucas. Ashley goes back and forth with Luke and Lucas using Lucas when she's upset with him. I know IMDb will only go by how they are listed in the credits and I'm guessing Wikipedia follows the same practice? Anyways, thanks again. Carmichael [TALK] | [CONTRIBS] 02:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Joeyconnick,
As an experienced Wikipedia editor, what are your suggestions when a Wikipedia editor repeatedly reverted back edits just so, he can changed it himself (exactly what you did)? I have tried to talk to him, but he just deleted my question on his talk page. — Lbtocthtalk 03:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi... this is about Family Guy (season 16), I assume? It does look pretty weird. If we assume good faith, it looks like the editor reverted your change, then realized they'd made a mistake and went back to the version you had in place. However, not sure why they didn't at least mention something to that effect in the edit summary (some people are quite bad at filling these in, sadly) or at least respond to your query on their talk page, which seemed innocent enough. If it's just a one-off thing, I would just let it go. If it happens a lot, or about other people's edits, I would raise it on the Talk page of the page where it's happening, pinging the user so they know their behaviour is being discussed (using {{ping}} or {{u}}). Or if it's happening across a number of related pages, you could try starting a discussion on the Talk page of the appropriate WikiProject. While it's not very good form to go running to the group the moment someone reverts you, obviously if there's a pattern of unexplained reversions and you've made a good faith attempt to discuss those edits with the editor yourself first, then I certainly would go a bit wider. If it's a problematic user, chances are others will have had similar experiences and can provide advice on how to handle it.

Hope that helps! —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. If there is a pattern, then it is an issue. — Lbtocthtalk 03:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

According to his talk page, he had repeated issues before several times where he purposely undo other people edits and reinstate them as his own. Hence, the WP:OWN issues. — Lbtocthtalk 04:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

	King of Hearts
	Thank you for the attention to detail and for making time and taking the energy to modify the "Eaddy Mays" page!  :) AnneAllias (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks AnneAllias... you're welcome! —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed you reverted my edit on Shadowhunters back to the original version. However, this version, "a human ... who protect humans from demons," is grammatically incorrect. Is there a better way to phrase it while still fixing this error?? Packer1028 (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Packer1028: oops sorry... I made a small correction that should fix it. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I see you deleted my info on the potential third tailtrack at the station. The photo clearly shows the empty centre tunnel and the walkway curving to accommodate an access track to it. Referenced or not, the camera isn't lying. Also, I wrote potential, not proposed. Transportfan70 (talk)

Again, WP:RS clearly states we need to source claims with reference to reliable and published information. The statements you keep adding are original research unless they are backed up by those types of sources. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

But yet again, why would the TTC built what's obviously a centre tunnel for no reason? I don't think the Wikipedia staff took grey-area examples like this into consideration when they made up that rule. In any case, they won't do anything anyways—it's edit police that don't get that a picture is worth a thousand words and feel the need to take things into their own hands. Frankly, I'd think a transit enthusiast would like you would want that to be mentioned, especially when it's obvious what the third tunnel is for. Transportfan70 (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Joeyconnick,
Just thought you should know that I have requested for the article to be semi-protected and it has been approved. However, it expires on April 28, 2018. It may need to be requested for long-term semi-protection due various ip addresses continuously vandalizing the article every time it becomes no loner semi-protected again. — Lbtocthtalk 18:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Joey,
Your solution (82 km; 51 mi) in Réseau express métropolitain is very elegant. I could have used it elsewhere in the past and I will use it in future conversions where needed. An encyclopedia exists to inform. There are two camps. There are the Americans who generally know balls about the metric system and the young people in the rest of the English speaking world who are no longer familiar with the imperial system. The E Americana very patriotically ignores the metric system, the E Britannica messes up the metric symbols and the World Book E gets it right. Incidentally you may possibly have noticed the the dairy industry has surreptitiously reduced the contents of the small cartons of milk and cream from 500 ml to 473 ml The latter is 16.0 US fl oz. I have not yet gotten around to question the competent authorities about this farce. Another farce is the de metrication of paint and antifreeze, etc. We now get 3.8 L instead of 4 L. The former is 1.0 US gal; 0.84 imp gal^*. So much for Canada being "officially" metric.
Regards, Peter Horn User talk 13:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Peter Horn... I try to fiddle around with templates until they do what I want them to do and to be fair, {{convert}} is pretty cool in terms of all the options it gives. On the plus side, Coke is now sold in 500 mL bottles, not 591 mL (20 US fl oz) ones. Of course, that conveniently gave Coke a price increase without them having to actually raise sticker prices. I'm still surprised Pepsi hasn't followed suit on that front. I believe 2 L bottles continue to be the most sold across the world, and I'm now seeing 1.25 L ones pop up. That's a bit troubling about the milk, though.

Canada will always be a bit of a mix until the US stops being so recalcitrant on the metric system. You'd think losing however many billion dollars on a Mars mission would have encouraged them but, well, they still have $1 bills and pennies, so what can you do?

My objection is not about providing conversion in general for US customary/Imperial units on Canadian articles, but in the specific instance we were dealing with, the three system lengths given were being given for the purpose of comparison with the main topic of the article, whose length had been given in both km and miles already. It seemed excessive to me (and still does) to also provide conversions for those three elements, especially in the age of Google being able to tell anyone already online in 2 seconds how many miles 82 km is. MOS:CONVERSIONS does support not including conversions for every value, and I think in this case, the passage that says When units are part of the subject of a topic – ... yards in articles about American football – it can be excessive to provide conversions every time a unit occurs is of relevance. I think it's a fair argument that kilometres are part of an article on Canadian transit systems, but I'm not going to edit war over it because the guideline can obviously be interpreted differently by different people. My default is just that readability should trump spoon-feeding people information in every format they might be accustomed to. Kinda like how Canadians in general have to understand 05/03/2018 could be the 3rd of May or the 5th of March. 😉 —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I just finished playing around as follows: 40 L; 11 US gal; 8.8 imp gal as compared to 40 L (11 US gal; 8.8 imp gal). Your objection to conversions in Canadian articles would similarly apply to Australian articles and the reverse would apply to US and older Brit articles. However, the name of the game is to inform and accommodate the "other camp". Peter Horn User talk 19:36,

My motto is: Pes imperialis per anum americanum. Peter Horn User talk 19:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

look at this one: {{convert|7.8|ft|ftin mm|frac=8|0|abbr=on|disp=x|; }} 7.8 ft; 7 ft 10 in; 2,377 mm in Brookville Liberty Modern Streetcar#Design and elsewhere. Peter Horn User talk 02:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

See also Melbourne ({{convert|256|km|mi|abbr=on|disp=x|; }}) (256 km; 159 mi), and all others, in Tram#Major tram and light rail systems Peter Horn User talk 21:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey man, I was going to revert you and try and explain why in the edit summary. But I'll do it here. Basically, it's kinda pointless. I mean, do we really need to add all this extra code to transclude a two-digit number? Plus, it'll become moot once the series ends, because again, we don't need to transclude a two-digit number that will never change. You have to update the date, so changing the number isn't anymore difficult. Plus, I've been the only one to update the numbers anyway. Another problem with this is that sometimes someone will change the number on the main article, but not update the date on the "List of..." page, so the date doesn't match the episode count. It can also happen vice-versa. We're overcomplicating something that doesn't need to be. It's just a number. Different story when you're transcluding an episode list or a season colour to multiple articles. This seems like overkill. Sorry for the long-winded response, hope you understand what I mean. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts: I see your point as to the fact the series is ending soon, although I don't think it's very much extra code to add to ensure a little bit of error-checking/consistency. I would rather the date was off than the episode count. And it would have been nice if you had attempted to explain what you were doing and your rationale in the edits you made initially. But if you want to strip it out on this article, I won't revert it again. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

While I'm generally as frustrated with RedProofHill's mediocre editing as you are, I think they have a point about including platform quantities. For a casual reader who may not know much about rail transport, "2 side platforms" or "1 centre platform" may make a lot more sense than "side platforms" or "centre platform". (Giving both number and type is the standard for US articles - not just NYC; UK and other European article seem to give quantity but not type.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: I feel like anyone who has ever been at a station will understand the difference between side platforms and centre ones (plus they are wikilinked), while those who haven't are not going to be helped by adding a count. The documentation seems pretty clear to me and the vast majority of Toronto station articles don't list a count, so there doesn't appear to be any relevant consensus to add counts, which in most cases will be redundant because there will generally only ever be either "1 centre platform" or "2 side platforms". —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they may understand the platform types, but the quantity may not be immediately obvious. Wikipedia is written not for railfans alone, but for a broader audience who may not automatically know the 1 island / 2 sides paradigm. It does absolutely no harm to add the counts, and I don't see a "relevant consensus" against adding the quantity - just that no one has done so yet, and you revert it when someone does. Anywhere there has actually been a consensus or any attempt at standardizing - including on Corridor stations - the quantity has been added. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Before you revert mass edits like you did at The Resident (TV series) you might want to make sure you wish to revert everything in the edits. There was an episode added to the table with a reference that was removed when you reverted. There was nothing wrong with that part of the article. So next time... double check? TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: I actually did know there had been subsequent edits made after the person who made a mess of the article. I made a conscious choice to sacrifice those edits, figuring they would be quickly redone by their originators or other editors, and that it was more important to remove the morass of plot details the one editor had added throughout the article in flagrant disregard for MOS:TV. There was no way to easily remove the bad edits and keep the good; if there had been, I would have gone that route. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

hey why did u revert my edit ? Megalyn Echikunwoke's bio states that her father is Igbo Nigerian and her mother is Irish and German, according to this information neither of her parents are "African American" by definition I put her as a nigerian actresses and u removed it, please explain why? when it clearly states she's ethnically Nigerian through her father — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philly2166 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Wanted to give you a heads up - I posted on Katherine Langford's talk page to discuss why you removed the infobox image. Thanks! Meatsgains^(talk) 01:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey Joeyconnick,

If you ever need feedback from me regarding changes to Metro Vancouver transit and related pages, don't hesitate to ping me (either on the relevant talk page or my user talk page). Even though I haven't been as active lately, I'm always willing to contribute feedback and assist with edits. Sweetnhappy (talk) 04:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sweetnhappy... thanks for the offer! I think that can sometimes be seen as canvassing, though, so I often prefer to put out general calls for any interested parties' opinions. You and I have often agreed in the past so I didn't want it to seem like I was calling in people just to back up my opinion on something this major, hence the more general call. But where possible and appropriate, I'll keep you in mind to notify directly for sure. It's always good to have people who are dedicated enough not just to do edits but also to write up their opinions, even if they don't always align with mine. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The "work" field automatically italicizes the name of the site, but "publisher" does not. I was trying to get the citation to line up with how these site names are formatted in their own articles. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It has been confirmed by multiple sources the film is due to be released in 2019.
https://variety.com/2018/film/news/robert-pattinson-more-cast-join-david-michods-king-for-netflix-1202826471/
https://screenrant.com/netflix-king-movie-cast-timothee-chalamet/
https://www.popbuzz.com/tv-film/netflix/timothee-chalamet-robert-pattinson-the-king/
http://collider.com/netflix-the-king-timothee-chalamet/
http://www.vulture.com/2018/05/robert-pattinson-timothee-chalamet-ben-mendelsohn-netflix-casting.html
http://ew.com/movies/2018/05/31/robert-pattinson-timothee-chalamet-the-king-netflix-henry-v-film/
https://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-gets-shakespearian-with-timothee-chalamet/
https://i-d.vice.com/en_us/article/3k4vew/this-new-netflix-film-stars-our-two-faves-timothee-chalamet-and-lily-rose-depp
ElizaOscar (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@ElizaOscar: Okay... so someone should cite one or more of those sources in the The King (upcoming film) and Timothée Chalamet articles before they consider listing the film as happening in 2019. But I understand why it's been moved to "(upcoming film)"—it doesn't have a solid release date... and even those can change considerably cf. The New Mutants (film). But at least The New Mutants has a specific release date, even though it may be subject to change. So I think "TBA" is appropriate for now, given WP:CRYSTAL. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Busy few days, plus I procrastinated, honestly. How about we put something like this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles.

Two editors, myself and Joeyconnick, have been discussing whether Biography.com should be italicized in footnotes. Our deduction is that it is an online biographical encyclopedia. The MOS states, "Online encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized (Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online). As neither of these examples are given as "Scholarpedia.org" or "M-W.com", we're thinking that for consistency that this cite read: work=Biography | publisher= FYI / A&E Networks)", the publisher part being as we already have it consistently now. This would make cites Biography.com consistent and agree with MOS. Thoughts?

Any tweaks or edits you'd suggest? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

No worries re: busy (or procrastinating). Only tweak is that can we just list A&E Networks? I'm not clear on all the complexities of ownership but it seems like A&E owns/runs FYI too, correct? And if FYI is a channel which is also owned by A&E, then it probably doesn't need to be listed as the publisher also (if we are considering publishers to be the corporate "parents" as it were). If that's not sufficient, I would recommend we pick one or the other. But at the end of the day, I think the biggest plus/point is Biography is functioning as an encyclopedia/dictionary and ought to be italicized and also not listed as its domain name. :)

Thanks for writing this up! —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The Toronto Star calls him James Egan here, in their headline: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/06/13/i-am-a-homosexual-gay-rights-pioneer-james-egan-celebrated-in-first-lgbtq2-heritage-minute.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ffolkways (talk • contribs) 23:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ffolkways: right... and that's one source. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

tTnx for yr rvt msg. I've been formatting them based on gut criteria for over a decade, and don't rule out urging an approach more adaptable to varying situations, but it's always nice to be aware of whe n one is complying w GL & when w the meta role wp:iar. For now, sleep is in order, & then I'll engage the matter you've raised. Tnx again. Jerzy•t 15:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jerzy: Sorry... I have no idea what revert you're referring to. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

So were not counting Wild West Comedy Show: 30 Days and 30 Nights – Hollywood to the Heartland as Mandel's feature film directorial debut, even though it was released in theaters and it pre-dates the The DUFF? QuasyBoy (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@QuasyBoy: oh I see what you mean. I guess technically The DUFF would be his feature debut but that's not how the category is written. So you're right. I've reverted myself at The DUFF article. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. QuasyBoy (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

FYI: Cherry - Temporary route change during TTC Construction. Service change starting June 24, 2018. I don't have time to do cleanup, but you reverted a couple of valid updates and I thought you should know. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)