User talk:Joeyconnick/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Coins and History of Canadian dollar

Hi Joeyconnick, Thanks for fixing that dual cite to the same page. I thought they linked to different pages; should have checked first. In case you're wondering about the source of the additions I made today to the Coins page, I'm steadily working through the History of the Canadian dollar page. It's a real dog's breakfast with a schizoid personality. Some of it is history of the currency; some of it is a list of commemorative Canadian coins; and some is just odds and ends about the coinage and the banknotes and miscellaneous money facts. Plus, I discovered that a big chunk of it, dating back about 10 years, is a complete cut and paste from a web-page from the Royal Canadian Mint, which raises obvious copyright issues. (Compare the current version to the version in mid-April, and you'll see what I mean.) I'm going to keep working on it to change it into a true "History of Canadian currency" page. I may move some more content to the "Coins" page, if appropriate, some to the "Canadian Banknotes" page, and I might start a new page on commemorative Canadian coins. Comments welcome. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, no problem. I have Twinkle on, so when I hover over links it shows me any redirects, which is handy and how I spotted it quickly... plus I figured given it had been renamed, it would probably be a redirect anyway. I've added some of the related pages (History of..., Canadian dollar, etc.) to my watchlist and I'm happy to do some copyediting. I'm not super-knowledgeable about the topic(s) so I'll leave the content to generous others like yourself. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed copyedit/proofread of the article! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome! Thanks for doing the heavy lifting to improve it. 👍 —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Italics proposal we talked about

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)

Hi, Joey. I've been away from Wikipedia for a while. Just needed a break. Yeah, I'm down with just using A&E Networks. I'll propose it on the citations talk page — the exact one I still have to figure out, and I'm just very weary these days but I will do it soon — and then let you know when I do if you want to weigh in and I hope you do. This consistency will be good and save editors a lot of grief if it goes through.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Tenebrae... No worries! Just let me know when you have it up somewhere. I understand the need for a break—sometimes it gets to be a slog here. 🙂 —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Curiosity question I had about a recent edit to Cole Sprouse

I noticed your edit reinstated the dashes (but better this time) over the N/A. I don't care either way, but it got me thinking enough to look around in case there was a specific rationale for it that I needed to educate myself on; however, I didn't find anything in all the places I could think to look, so: is there a policy/guideline reason for dashes over N/A or is it just a preference thing? (Or did I overlook something? I feel like I'm doing that a lot lately!) - Purplewowies (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything specific that you've overlooked (that I know of)... some people just leave it blank, some people use dashes, some people put "herself" or "himself" (which I find super-awkward and tend to change, and really requires the column header to be changed, which is also awkward, to something like "Nominated work or person"). I went for {{snd}} because the n/a template you'd used changes the background colour of the cell, which draws unnecessary attention to those cells. I guess {{TableTBA|N/A|Not applicable}} could also be used. I tend to prefer blank or dash (i.e. non-text) myself. —Joeyconnick (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Italics

Hey, in regards to this edit, the work parameter automatically formats websites, such as Rotten Tomatoes, BuzzFeed, etc, in italics, which should not be the case. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a common complaint from some people, but that's a "feature" of the {{cite web}} template, and being correct semantically is more important than achieving a particular style. Websites are not publishers, as per the documentation at Template:Cite web/doc#Publisher, where it specifically says Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.). Also, when used as a source, a website is serving as a publication/work just like a print newspaper or journal does, and should be italicized in the "References" section. In an article's text, no, we generally don't italicize websites (although there are some notable exceptions, like Deadline Hollywood). —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Newspapers and magazines are always named in italics, websites are not. That's why, for example, we write them as Rotten Tomatoes and The New York Times. Moreover, we must be consistent in our MoS throughout the article (including the references). Is there any way we can prevent websites from being italicised when we use the work parameter? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it's been requested by a number of people and it seems to never get very far. Not everyone agrees on the reasoning you've put forward. I definitely feel myself that while consistency is desirable, it's more important to be accurate about what something is (or is serving as), not how it's rendered. And again, some websites are italicized so consistency has already been lost on that front. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Found a way to use the work parameter and respect the MoS as well. Also, when I talk about consistency, it is with the website's article title. Rotten Tomatoes, Box Office Mojo, IGN, Collider, BuzzFeed, to name a few used in Larson's article, are not named in italics. The Deadline Hollywood you mention, is considered an online magazine, and its Wiki article title is in italics, so yes, consistency has been maintained there too. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be missing my point... Deadline Hollywood was originally not italicized and after much debate fairly recently it has been. So something is never one things always and forever. And no, in a reference section it doesn't matter if the name of the work is italicized if it happens to be a website, however it is styled on its article page. The distinction between "online publication", "website" and "printed work" has always been artificial and is growing more and more so. If we're using websites as sources just like we are print newspapers and journals of old, just italicize them. All the non-italicized websites you name are essentially online magazines, except maybe Rotten Tomatoes, and I suspect this is why the consensus at {{Web cite}} has been to keep |website= as an alias for |work= and just always italicize things that are listed as publications. In short, you are making a distinction that does not need to be made. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Sort template replacement

Hi, earlier today you replaced the sort templates on Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation with data-sort-value; did you do that manually or with a regex/script? And if the latter, can you post it? I was going to replicate the change to the other Hugo Award categories, but the regex I made kept growing more complicated to handle special cases so I thought I'd ask if the work had already been done on that. Thanks! --PresN 02:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi PresN! I performed two regexp search-and-replace operations in BBEdit on my Mac. This first:

search: \|\ ?\{\{sort\|(.*?)\|(.*?)\}\}

replace: | data-sort-value="\1" | \2

and then this to catch the TV episodes in the first table:

search: \|\ ?\data-sort-value="(.*?)"(.*?)""

replace: | data-sort-value="\1\2"

Then I just sorted each of the three tables by "Work" and did sanity checks, mainly looking for titles starting with "A", "An", or "The" that hadn't had {{sort}} applied and adding data-sort-values to titles with numbers in their title, i.e. "Twenty-eight Days Later" for 28 Days Later, etc. I considered adjusting data-sort-values for episode titles that started with "A", "An", or "The" but that seemed a little too overkill so I left them. So no scripting, exactly, but DEFINITELY did not do it manually. 😀 Hope that helps? —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: That definitely helps a ton! I'd gotten the first regex, but it was having trouble with quotes in a different list, so this clarifies what I should do. Thanks! --PresN 03:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

VQFF

VQFF does not have any special claim to being somehow more "political queer" than Toronto's Inside Out Film and Video Festival, or the New York Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, & Transgender Film Festival, or San Francisco's Frameline Film Festival, or Madrid's LesGaiCineMad, or London's BFI Flare, or any of the dozens of other LGBTQ film festivals whose articles aren't being filed in Category:Queer. It's not uniquely "queer" in any way that is somehow not shared by every LGBT film festival on the planet — Inside Out is not less "queer" than VQFF is just because it doesn't have the word queer in its name, Frameline is not less "queer" than VQFF is just because it doesn't have the word queer in its name, and on and so forth. So either all LGBT film festivals go in Category:Queer or none do — VQFF's "queerness" is not a point of uniqueness that makes it different from all of the others, because they're all "queer" film festivals in the same way whether they use the word queer in their names or not. Bearcat (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I was not arguing that it was more queer than any other film festival. I was not talking about any other film festival, period. I was talking about VQFF, which on top of having queer in its name (which given how queer politics work actually is very much a political statement, certainly in 2018, because naming is a very conscious, explicit choice and they could have named themselves the Vancouver LGBT film fest, or the Vancouver OutFest or the Vancouver Pride Film Fest, etc etc etc) explicitly lays out political awareness and goals around the concept of queerness in its statements from its leadership. The statement in last year's annual report by the chair of the organization is simply the first and most obvious documentation I found that backs up the notion that their relationship to queer politics is much more than what you initially suggested, which is that they're using "queer" as a convenient umbrella term. The generic "convenient umbrella term" du jour would be some version of the acronym LGBT, or "Pride" or "Out" or even "Rainbow". "Queer" as a term is problematic for a number of people, so its use in their name is political in and of itself. But on top of that, as I pointed out, the statements from their chair indicate a conscious political alignment/mandate/mission/awareness.

Whether the other film fests you mentioned ought to be in the category or not is not an all-or-nothing proposition, and actually totally beside the point. The only relevant question is: does the "Out On Screen" article fit in the category "queer"? I would argue, based on the name of their best-known endeavour along with the clear statements from their leadership, it does. It's a defining characteristic. (as a side note, not sure why this discussion is happening on my Talk page and not the Talk page for the article, where other potentially interested editors would be more likely to find it) —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Michelle Williams

Access dates were removed due to this comment at Williams' FAC by Indopug. I have no interest in warring over this. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Just so we're clear: you still didn't explain what FAC was. But I get it now. That is not at all how I would treat access dates: if paired with an archive-url and an archive-date, they would still provide the date when the source was originally added, which could be useful. But whatever. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

FAC is Wikipedia: Featured Article Candidates, where the article is currently nominated. Also, I agree with your assessment on access-date (as is evident from the fact that I added them in the first place), but this isn’t up to me at this point. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how "the date when the source was originally added" is useful to the lay reader of the article; certainly not enough to outweigh the benefits of de-cluttering the References section. Indeed WP:CITEWEB suggests they are only "required if the publication date is unknown".—indopug (talk) 05:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Teen Wolf

Hello. I am the editor SummeRStorM79. I just wanted to see what the issue was with my edit to the "Teen Wolf" (1985) movie plot? It was reverted to how it originally was. I was only trying to more accurately describe that certain part, having recently watched the film. May I re-edit, or should it just be left how it is? SummeRStorM79 (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the Teen Wolf article and my reversion of your edit, "sucker-punched" is not appropriate in terms of tone for an encyclopedia, as per WP:TONE. You also changed from the active voice "until the Wolf comes out and attacks him" to a strange passive construction "which brings out the Wolf and an ensuing attack on Mick", which is essentially saying "which brings out an ensuing attack on Mick". Neither of those changes improve what was there before. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I understand the reasoning here for why the edits I made weren't "appropriate tone". I didn't see any evidence where Mick taunts Scott in that scene. Mick takes his coat off, walks up to Scott, & basically unexpectedly punches him. That's kind of the definition of "sucker punch". I'm not getting why that is not appropriate. I don't believe my wording for a passive construction was "strange". I only wished to improve the accuracy of this particular section of the plot. But, since I do not wish to cause an issue, I will leave it how it is, even though I do not agree with it.

I'm just confused why some edits I make are fine, whilst others I try to make are taken issue with? Are there different levels of editors on Wikipedia? SummeRStorM79 (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

"Sucker-punched" is slang, so inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you can't understand why "brings out an ensuing attack" is awkward, I can't help you there... that's just knowing English. It's far simpler and better form to say "the Wolf attacks him"; in general the active voice is preferred in writing, especially something like a plot summary. In particular in this case, there's no ambiguity if you write "the wolf attacks him". If you write "brings out an ensuing attack on Mick", there's ambiguity about who is attacking Mick. Yes, you can infer it's the wolf but why make your reader do extra work when you can just be clear about it? Also, I have never heard an attack described as a situation where something "brings out" an attack. Someone is attacked, someone may launch an attack, an attack may ensue (although that's possibly overly elaborate/formal), an attack may be brought about by something (although, again, possibly over the top). The problem is that "brings out" applies to the Wolf being brought out of Scott (also awkward but at least more accurate/appropriate) but it isn't the right construction for describing the fact that the Wolf then attacks Mick. It's what's called faulty parallelism, where you're combining the wolf coming out and the attack on Mick, but the grammar for both events doesn't match.

There are no levels of editors here... there are users who have admin and bureaucrat rights but that doesn't give them more say in how articles are edited. But there's a general understanding that edits should improve the article... and definitely meet with the wikipedia guidelines, and the language in your edits did not do that. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for the input. I didn't realize my wording was incorrect, & that "sucker punch" was inappropriate for Wikipedia. I didn't mean any harm. I was trying to give that particular plot section more accuracy. I still don't agree with how it says Mick taunts Scott. He does do that in some earlier scenes, but there is no evidence that he taunts Scott at the dance, leading up to him punching Scott. I will watch & be more careful of my wording in the future. Thank you for the education & advice. =) SummeRStorM79 (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Happy Death Day 2U promo poster.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

American LGBT-related TV shows

WHAT ARE HECK ARE YOU DOING TO MY EDITS!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1315:60A9:C444:B8EF:C911:D25D (talk) 06:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm reversing a bunch of them where you are collapsing drama categories into the LGBT-related drama category when the shows in question are not primarily LGBT shows, so while the LGBT drama category is legit to add, you shouldn't be wholesale removing the drama category. Also, don't shout... you're the one going through making lots of rapid-fire changes for which you have zero consensus. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

BRD

The usual order is WP:BRD. It's a done deal. The LRT line, as it is currently proposed, will not be built. Past tense is the only appropriate option. Feel free to discuss further on the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, BRD means you, who are making the bold edits on a matter that is still in the process of being decided (e.g. no Mayors' Council meeting has happened), should be on the article Talk page gaining consensus for such edits, as opposed to forcing them on the article, which already notes the recent vote. Again, WP:RECENTISM... we need to wait for things to run their course. The council meeting with the vote was literally last night. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

B-Line Express Bus vs. Limited-stop bus

Just curious about your reverting of my edits on the CMBC B-Lines being "limited-stop" buses instead of "express" buses as I believe my edits were factually correct.

If you read the articles on the two types of service--Express bus service and limited-stop--it's clear that the B-Lines are limited-stop service, not express, a common misconception. An example of an express buses in the CMBC is the 555 that connects Langley and Lougheed Station. Toasterb (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)