User talk:Joeyconnick/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Dark Phoenix

Box office bomb is not a subjective term, it is a widely established and used term used in the movie industry to describe a film that has been unprofitable during its theatrical run. It is seen in a plethora of sources everywhere, for instance here, here and here. There's nothing subjective about it or its definition, a film has either made money in respect to its budget and marketing costs or it did not, and Dark Phoenix simply did not. And there are a plethora of sources to support that too, not least the source I already put a spotlight on in our edit summaries which can be found lower down in the body of the article, so I don't understand what the issue is. You do not need a studio to release it's own exact financials to asses a film's financial success as plenty of other reliable sources report on the matter including those that provide exact figures for overall profits/losses on a film and not just individual budget and marketing costs which then forces you to come to your own conclusion as you seem to believe is the case. The aformentioned source I noted has the cumulative losses of the film in it. Davefelmer (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Jameela Jamil

As per BRD:

"Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting."

This is what I tried to do on the article Talk Page several weeks ago but you made no effort to engage with the new points I made, and only seemed to bother to engage when I edited again. Which specific part of BRD are you using to justify your revert without newly engaging in the discussion on the Talk Page? You made no new effort to discuss the matter on the Talk Page with me before reverting, even though I had added a lot of points on the Talk Page since you last commented, and when making my latest edit then specifically directed my edit to the discussion there. That seems to me to be bad-faith editing on your part and makes you appear biased towards Jamil - I'm not necessarily saying you're one of them, but I find that a lot of editors seem to have 'pet' articles that they treat like their personal fiefdoms, being especially dismissive of any relatively new user who dares to take Wikipedia's 'anyone can edit' advice literally.

I suppose if I add a paragraph about the allegations that Jamil has lied about her supposed health conditions, accidents, etc, you will simply revert that edit as well, even though it was an infinitely bigger news story and more pertinent to her biography than the trivia that just recently got added about her posing for Playboy. I don't have any sockpuppet accounts so all my editing is clear to see under my username. Perhaps we could leave the issue of Jamil's legal name to one side for the moment and compromise by working on a paragraph about the lying allegations to add to the article, one which we both check and discuss to see if we find it acceptable before publication? Do you want to draft it or shall I? Uakari (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft Articles

Hi, hope you're doing well. I was wondering if you could take a look at some of my draft articles and see if they need any improvement. I've created four new draft articles over the last week, and I'd seriously appreciate it if someone more experienced than I am could take a look at it. Thanks! Kaito Nakamura (talk) 08:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Keidrich Sellati

Hey why do you keep removing the birthdate for Keidrich Sellati? He was born in 2001, this is listed in several sources. I'd venture to say that more than half of biographies are "unreferenced" as to the birthdate, so why are you picking on this particular article? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Show us a reliable source that gives his birthdate and it can be included. Otherwise WP:BLP. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Heavy.com specifically states he was born in 2001, so now you are being foolish. I don't see what the beef is. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Heavy.com is misinterpreting a previous interview that they are referring to, so it's a tertiary source. I switched things over to the actual article, which only says he was 15 at a certain point in 2017, so the edit made is the best info we have. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, what's your source it's misinterpreting? It's not just republishing the interview. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alisha Boe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norwegian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Your edit to "Date and time notation in Canada"

In this edit you created a situation where the article actually gives UTC, without any label as to which time zone is represented. While it is not clear which Canadian time zone is intended when there is no time zone label, clearly the reasonable inference it is one of the Canadian time zones. Clearly, UTC is not observed as a time zone anywhere in Canada.

Please find a fix for this. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not necessary... because the dates and times listed are there only to give examples of the formats, not to indicate what date or time it might be in any part of Canada. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Texada/Gillies Bay Airport

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Slashes (strokes) "An unspaced slash may be used:...where a slash occurs in an expression or abbreviation widely used outside Wikipedia, and a different construction would be inaccurate, unfamiliar, or ambiguous (e.g., w/o)" The source, Canada Flight Supplement, has an unspaced slash as does the official site and Skyvector (used as a source for multiple airports on Wikipedia). There are hundreds of unspaced slashes used for airports around the world. Can you move it back. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Except it's not "an expression or abbreviation", it's the name of an airport (e.g. it's not "c/o" standing in for "care of"). So the relevant part of MOS:SLASH is the use of a spaced slash to separate items that include at least one internal space (the NY 31 east / NY 370 exit), where for some reason use of a slash is unavoidable. And we don't follow sources for matters of style, we follow WP:MOS. See WP:SSF. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

OK so why that particular airport? In one of the lists that you changed to use the spaced slash there was at least on other airport without the space. What about all the other airports are you planning to move them? Such as Baltimore/Washington International Airport to Baltimore / Washington International Airport. The Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy says in part it says that "it is an argument sometimes made by editors who "over-defer" to specialized works on style matters that are actually beyond the specialization's scope." It's only an essay and has no standing really. As is it can be used to say that I am over relying on multiple sources and you are over relying on the MOS. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

That was the airport article I happened to come across. I'm under no obligation to bring every single article, or even every other airport article, closer to alignment with our guidelines; if that were the requirement, no changes would ever be made because whoever made them in one place would be held responsible for fixing every possible instance where someone had no followed guidelines, which is patently absurd. And there is no such thing as "over reliance" on our MOS: that's a false dichotomy. For style matters, sources have no standing—it's just the MOS. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

92nd Academy Awards FLC

Hi there,

I responded to your comments regarding the featured list candidacy for the 92nd Academy Awards accordingly.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Note regarding edits to List of awards and nominations received by The Good Place

I recently noticed that you made some formatting changes to the page List of awards and nominations received by The Good Place. The big change that I noticed was the removal of duplicate wikilinks, which has happened once before. While I know duplicate links are not normally acceptable, in this instance, they are not just acceptable but preferable. Recently promoted featured lists (such as the awards lists for Game of Thrones, Stranger Things, and Community) all use this formatting.

This also seems to be in line with MOS:DUPLINK, which allows for duplicate links in lists, particularly when "the list is presenting information that ... is expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom." Moreover, if a wikilink is posted only at the first occurrence, sorting the table will quite likely move the link to a position where the reader cannot easily find it. As the FL discussion for Stranger Things noted: "Since the table is sortable, it should link linkable items every time."

Does this make sense, or is there something else that I have not considered here? RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to me in terms of WP:SEAOFBLUE and I'm definitely not a fan of the overly common "well this featured list does it this way, so this is the way we must do all lists" logic, but okay, sure. I honestly don't see the issue... it's not like navigating Wikipedia is hard, and while that particular table is longer than some, if people can't either reload the page to find the first occurrence in the default-sorted table or simply scan the table for the linked version of the text, then maybe hyperlinked webpages are not their jam. There's also a lot to be said for assuming readers are intelligent enough not to require every occurrence of an article's title to be linked. But I digress... —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand your points, and I think there are a lot of people who'd agree with you. The reason I'm bringing this up is that I'm hoping to nominate the article for FL status soon, and once I'm done with that, there are some similar pages that I'd like to bring to FL status as well, so I'd like to find a broader consensus on the topic. Would you mind if I opened a more thorough discussion for this article to address the issue? I figured I'd ask you before I did it since you represent the opposing view on that page. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure thing... I'll refrain from any link removal on the article. But it would be great to have bit of broader consensus or guideline so we all don't have to rehash it every time. Either "we should be aiming for this format" or "this is an acceptable format but it's not the only one just because some FLs use it". —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello, Joeyconnick! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time.

Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Arrowverse task force‎

 As someone who has frequently edited the Arrowverse article in the past, you may be interested in participating in the newly created Arrowverse task force‎. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

James Marsden‎

I have no problem with your removal. I only sourced it because I was getting tired of dealing with the incessant IP socking on this edit. Meters (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah ok. Yeah... it's a bit of a constant battle to try to explain to folks we are not E! or People. LOL —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Stephanie Sigman data

I added available information about Stephanie Sigman and then it is removed because it lacks citations then when I put the citations for no particular reason the data is removed again.RichardBond (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Reverted to revision 981905932 by Joeyconnick (talk): Unsourced; WP:CITEIMDB

The heck it is unsourced "Quien" is a major Spanish language magazine. It is like "People" or "Us" in the United States and while IMDB is not considered a primary source it is likely to be accurate on a birthdate.RichardBond (talk) 08:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted to restore the "Quien" reference. "it is likely to be accurate on a birthdate" is hardly any kind of ringing endorsement for including user-generated content, however, so that stays out until a reliable source presents it. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:Netflix original continuation series

I changed the years to 2-digit ranges for consistency with Template:Netflix original ended series (2012–18). BenbowInn (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I see. I've addressed that. At this point in the game, the project has a clear preference for 4-digit years. The navboxes are so big already that the space "saved" by dumping the century for the end year is not worth it. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The template appears to include the footer linking other templates in articles, even though that part is in a <noinclude> tag. Can you fix that, too? BenbowInn (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's working as intended... the noinclude tag starts right AFTER the footer, and the intent is to include links to all the other Netflix series—related navboxes. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

VMC station Zum service

Thanks for correcting the glitch in the article. I wonder though; wasn't through service on the 501 cut back to VMC well before the pandemic? Like back in 2018? Transportfan70 (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure thing. Don't actually know re: the service. Guess we should find a source. 🙂 —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The Scream 5 page should be moved to Untitled Scream sequel or Scream (2022 film)

Hi @Joeyconnick:. Hope all is well. I wanted to bring a query to your attention. According to Paramount Pictures, the title of this movie hasn't actually been confirmed as Scream 5. It appears that certain media outlets are making that assumption, even though the recent teaser on the official Scream Twitter account did not show a numbered Scream title. What lends more credence to the above statement is that the directors involved have not connected this project and referred to it as Scream 5 either. Additionally, Variety noted that Spyglass Media Group and Paramount are labeling this movie as a "relaunch" of the series. I find this case to be similar to what Universal Pictures, Blumhouse Productions and Miramax did to Halloween (2018 film) in that front. In light of such evidence, I suggest the idea of re-titling the aforementioned article page to either Untitled Scream sequel or Scream (2022), to accommodate the change. Elainasla (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Discussion of guidelines for short descriptions

There’s a new proposal to add dating recommendations to the guidelines for short descriptions. Short descriptions are a prominent part of the mobile user experience, but the discussion so far has had relatively few voices. Since you are a top contributor to one or more Manual of Style pages, I thought you might be interested. Cheers —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 01:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you again for your cleanup of my additions at the Canada article. Moxy 🍁 01:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome, Moxy! Thank you for your additions and edits to improve the article. 🙂 —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Erin Karpluk

02:52, 12 December 2020 diff hist −1,546‎ Erin Karpluk ‎ Reverted to revision 985310997 by Joeyconnick (talk): Reduce rowspan to improve WP:ACCESS; serious overlink problems

Hi, could you please let me know what was wrong with my edits on this article? You reverted them but I don't see why. I only expanded missing credits/awards.Wikiabitbetter (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi... you unnecessarily merged rows in tables (while this can be done for the year column, it's not necessary, and is generally problematic elsewhere in these tables) and then you had tons of duplicate links in your added content (also at Anna Torv). In general, we link once to something in a table, to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE and WP:OVERLINK. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the information! I'm not too experienced so I'll take it into account from now on.Wikiabitbetter (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

RE:

If I'm "disruptive", then why are you still looking? I'm merging and you don't seem to understand that part. Feel free to edit something else. 192.249.199.158 (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

"still looking..." at what? I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. Also, please WP:AGF and also be WP:CIVIL. It'll get you a long way. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Vancouver-Kensington MLA Table

Hello. I have noticed that you have undid my edit to make the table consistent with the other tables (the colour is usually next to the "Member" column, see Template:OntMPP Row, Richmond North Centre, Vancouver-Kingsway). Why is that? Thank you. - Eric0892 (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Because the colour represents the party, not the person. It's not about being blindly consistent if it's done wrong elsewhere... it's about being correct. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

You've got a point. Thank you. - Eric0892 (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID and Nico Tortorella

December 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Nico Tortorella, you may be blocked from editing. —RedEchidna (talk) 05:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nico Tortorella; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. —RedEchidna (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah you can parrot the warnings all you want but that doesn't change the fact you are 100% in the wrong. As has been pointed out to you repeatedly. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

It's exactly what you are doing. As has been pointed out to you, you are contributing to antecedent disagreement. If you prefer, we can change the antecedent. How would you feel about that? RedEchidna (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Singular they is a thing. Don't try to falsely act all "reasonable" now: the article was perfectly fine until you started your disruptive editing. You have been pointed to MOS:GENDERID multiple times, which clearly lays out that individuals (as in singular people) do (and can) use "they" as their pronoun of choice, and that Wikipedia editors have to respect that. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not 'falsely' acting reasonable. You can either change the antecedent or the pronoun, but you cannot have mismatched numbers. I was just trying to find compromise instead of the hostility coming from you. 'They' is not singular. It's used incorrectly as slang. An encyclopedia is a neutral piece. If this were an op-ed it could be written in any way the author wishes so. RedEchidna (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Singular they has been used for hundreds of years and is widely used across Wikipedia. Your views on grammar do not trump either the editing guidelines here (where singular they is accepted as very normal usage) or a BLP subject's self-identification. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I suppose we should adopt some other mechanics from Old English? 'They' is not singular. 'It' is singular. 'He or she' is singular. If personal preference were to be prioritized, the encyclopedia would be riddled with all sorts of slang, like 'ain't' or double negatives. Is this an encyclopedia or an op-ed? I am asking politely, would you prefer the antecedent be changed instead? RedEchidna (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Except we can't change the antecedant because they are an individual. Who has indicated they use singular they/them pronouns. Which, again, is wholly acceptable at Wikipedia even if it offends your sensibilities. So, would you like to revert your edits on Nico Tortorella or should I report this matter to the BLP noticeboard? —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand you're not a native English speaker and this can be confusing, which is why I thought those links might help you. This is not a 'view.' These are rules of grammar. It is you who is trying to enforce your personal view and preference for slang onto an encyclopedic entry. As you say we cannot change the antecedent, you now see the conundrum. If this person is an individual, which he is, then we must either use 'it' or 'he or she.' If we change the antecedent, we simply make it plural if you want to retain plural pronouns. It's unusual to make a full name plural, but individual names are sometimes pluralized. However, it is even more unusual to utilize slang preference. We already have an editor reviewing the case, but the preference is for us to resolve it. RedEchidna (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I do so appreciate you making my case for me. You might want to review WP:CIVIL before you start casting aspersions as to what someone's mother tongue is or is not. Also, feel free to brush up on prescriptivism vs. descriptivism, as I think you may find that Wikipedia tends towards the latter in terms of how it "polices" language. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I have made no aspersions. What I suggested was perhaps since you don't seem to have a firm grasp of usage and mechanics that perhaps English in not a native language. I also sensed it with some of your responses. I have taught English and English as a second language, so telltale signs are sometimes salient. These things can sometimes be very difficult and impossible for non-native speakers, as other languages have completely different sets of rules. You should be cautious before you accuse someone of ad hominem statements when you yourself suggest that I do not understand linguistic minutia. However, I appreciate the consideration. RedEchidna (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh I am certain they will favor personal preference and slang in entries. That has been the longstanding approach the website has taken. It is why it is not regarded highly or at all in regards to reliable sourcing. It is for this reason that others like Britannica are preferred more. However, a group of editors here want to make certain that Wikipedia meets those higher standards, that we don't lag behind the other encyclopedias, that this site can attain high reliability and validity. We can make Wikipedia a place for secondary or even primary sourcing. RedEchidna (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand you're not a native English speaker and this can be confusing, which is why I thought those links might help you. [emphasis mine]

I mean, I guess because I have such a tenuous grasp of the English language, I may not be "interpreting" this right (oh sorry, I mean "correctly", since "interpreting this right" might be too painfully colloquial for you), but that's a statement of (purported) fact, not a "perhaps the case may be" mealy-mouthed "suggestion", that my English is poor. Maybe you'd like to stop digging yourself deeper? —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the hostility is coming from one side only. Just reread what you wrote just now. There is so much hostility and aggression in your response. Yes, for non-native speakers understanding case and numbers can be difficult or confusing. I still have difficulty with those in French. Suggesting that there is something wrong with that is a personal insult. You are also suggesting there is something wrong with learning English as a second language. There are many people who learn English later on, either because they didn't have the opportunity or because of resources. There is nothing wrong with that. People who learn English secondary to their native language do not speak poorly. They are not less capable as you have suggested. They are very proud of their accomplishments. They are also not consumed by their hubris to deny asking for help when needed. I am shocked that you would make such an assertion. Yes, correct usage and mechanics are completely important when it comes to encyclopedia entries. The fact that you don't think so and call me 'mealy-mouthed,' another such insult, when being an editor here is confounding. I don't edit the Romanian encyclopedia because my understanding of that language is extremely poor. The editors there could criticize me for my poor usage because it would be poor, and it would bring down the quality of the entire site. This is a matter of objectivity versus subjectivity. Also, please do not mock me again. RedEchidna (talk) 07:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Just a note on a recent revert (not calling anything out!)

So in this edit the revert reason was that the removal was unexplained. Granted, it wasn't explained in English but the person who removed the statement did so because they thought it was advertising. I don't think it rises to that, so I agree with your revert, but when I looked into the German and found out it meant that, I was overcome with the urge to share? Not that "explaining in a non-English language" is necessarily something that one always must look into here on the English Wikipedia (that's why there are advisory templates for people editing primarily not in English), just that this particular case was for a reason... but the reason wouldn't be easily understandable to non-bilingual people who haven't looked it up. (...Feel free to ignore this; it's mostly a "look at this cool new word I learned that shows the removal was in good faith!". :P) - Purplewowies (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Oops, looking into their contribution history it might not be fully AGF (they have a history of removing sourced statements and are probably trying to do it a lot and evade detection to some extent) but they explained it is the point I'm trying to say. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks... I did do a translation of the word but it still wasn't totally clear to me what the editor meant and my understanding is that edit summaries should be in English for en.wikipedia.org. So I took it out. I figure if someone is going to remove a sourced statement, they need to explain themselves with more than a single, non-English word. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Actual English titles of films

English Wikipedia's naming conventions state "Use the title more commonly recognized by English readers; normally this means the title under which it has been released in cinemas or on video in the English-speaking world. … the phrase 'the English-speaking world' refers to countries in which the majority of the population speaks English as their first language; it thus includes the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, Ireland and New Zealand, as well as several smaller countries. It does not include countries such as India in which English is a common second language, but in which films are rarely produced in English."

Boys Love: The Movie is the English title used for BOYS LOVE 劇場版 by the film's Japanese rights-holders (as shown by this being the title on JFDB), but Schoolboy Crush, as much as it might not be the English title intended by the film's makers (and a pretty weak and off-putting title in my personal opinion), is the only title under which it is known (by me at least) to have been released in any format in any "English-speaking world" countries, as per the definition of that in the naming conventions. That is why I changed the title to the only known US/CA/UK/IE release title.

Boys Love: The Movie might be the "actual" English title in that it's the one intended by its Japanese makers, but the naming conventions seem to be pretty clear to me that the rule is, generally, the use the title a film has been released under, not what its makers intended.

If you know of any English-subtitled releases under the Boys Love: The Movie title, then that should probably be the main title for it on English Wikipedia (as it is both a release title and the intended one). Otherwise it seems that intended titles get outranked by release titles.

That's how I understand the conventions, anyway. It's not a big problem which of the two in this case is the main title, anyway, as the other can always be mentioned in the opening paragraph. --Tempjrds (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Before I Fall

I think last names are important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.175.208 (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

That's nice but WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument and it certainly doesn't justify your edit-warring. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Commas versus dashes on Gossip Girl cast and crew section

Commas can get confusing because there are others in the sentence following them too. SupriyaThanawala (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Commas are standard per MOS:TVCAST. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Reversion

Aside from your dubious rationale, you also removed Lerman's credits on Press Play & Rothko, which had not been noted on the page previously. Don't you think they should be accounted for somewhere? DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 00:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, this isn't about a "random person walking down the street"; this is for giving an informed and complete picture. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 00:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I was trying to describe how notability works: is he primarily known as a producer? No, not as yet. He's known as an actor by the general public. So it's more than appropriate to list producer credits but he's not Brad Pitt at this point—he hasn't done enough producing that most (i.e. most people walking down the street) (or even the entertainment press) would describe him as a producer. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Canadian dollar

I reverted your reversion because the {{exchange rate}} template is to be on every page describing a currency. --Keyacom (💬 | 🖊) 20:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

On {{Mascouche line}}

Hi Joeyconnick,

I noticed the comment you put on your recent edit on the aforementioned template, and I was wondering... in what way could the legacy tracks be disambiguated from future tracks (and, say, alternative routes)? It's tough to represent both the current line (a bypass route), the former line (which parallels the REM) and the future line (which stops at Cote-de-Liessa Sta.). I could try using an alternate color scheme but this may become confusing, especially granted that red is the "typical color' used on WP for all above-ground rail, and I used green here specifically to represent the REM (which is green-themed). Casspedia (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Central City (Surrey)

Hi, I believe your recent revert of my move to this article is in error. You cite MOS:CANNEIGH as a justification; however, this applies to neighbourhoods, whereas this article concerns a building.

Articles in Category:Buildings and structures in Surrey are disambiguated with (Surrey); therefore, articles in Category:Buildings and structures in Surrey, British Columbia are disambiguated with (Surrey, British Columbia). 162 etc. (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah... you're right: I was confusing the neighbourhood (called both Whalley and Central City) with the building. I see Central City (building) already exists. I feel like Central City (Surrey, British Columbia) is fairly misleading, though, as I would assume many, like me, would assume it was in reference to the area, not the structure.

I think Central City (shopping centre), which is still more concise than Central City (Surrey, British Columbia), would be the best choice. Guildford, the structure/mall/shopping centre, is using Guildford Town Centre (mall), although it should probably use the more generic and perhaps more clear in this context Guildford Town Centre (shopping centre).

Category names don't determine disambiguators, though, and I'm not seeing any naming convention guidelines for structures and buildings that would require the use of "(Surrey, British Columbia)" as the disambiguator... —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

While I'd like to agree on Central City (shopping centre), Central City (Seoul) is a bus terminal with attached shopping mall, so it would be insufficient disambiguation.

There could be a hatnote back to Whalley, Surrey at the top if you think that there is possible confusion. That article, however, says that it is also known as "Surrey City Centre", not Central City. I'm not local to the area, so I'll take your word for it.

The current title, in any case, is not in line with policy. (Surrey) refers to the English county, not the city in British Columbia. 162 etc. (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Your revert of my edit in List of Vancouver SkyTrain stations

Hello, you reverted my two edits, but I would like to tell you that Lougheed Station actually did construct a new platform for the Expo line, and so does have two opening dates. Also , the list does not specifically state "opening date" rather, it states "year" as the column title, so your reason for reverting is not completely clear. You also reverted the line clarifications I added for Waterfront and Commercial-Broadway for no reason. I will be changing it back. Please discuss on the talk page if you have any objections. Zacharycmango (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

For dealing with illiterati who are sure they know what "penultimate" means, but really do not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Jaeden Martell

Sorry I completely misread your edit on my device, now I’ve seen the whole edit I shouldn’t have reverted it at all, it’s fine.—--Pontificalibus 06:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

"Untitled Sonic the Hedgehog sequel" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Untitled Sonic the Hedgehog sequel. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 6#Untitled Sonic the Hedgehog sequel until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Wellesley station

Wellesley street subway; you made a fair point about comparing the subway station to the street; but you also should explain this yourself in the webpage for Wellesley station, as the quote I wrote was mentioned on a TTC website and should be referenced as a completion to basic context on this page. If there's a fact it should be mentioned here on wiki.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cltjames (talk • contribs) 01:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Single transferable vote

Thank you for noticing that I hadn't put in a source for my claim about STV. Do you think this article is a good source for the claim that it leads to larger constituencies, since each one has to have multiple seats? "Advantages and Disadvantages of Using the Single Transferable Vote System". UK Engage. UK Engage. June 18, 2013. Retrieved July 25, 2021.

RedPanda25 17:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Draftifying articles

Hello, Joeyconnick,

If you move an article to Draft space, please tag the original page for speedy deletion, CSD R2, which we use for cross-space redirects from main space. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure thing... thanks for the tip! —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)