User talk:Joeyconnick/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Bus line edits

Just to clear up some stuff about the bus line edits:

Regarding the "average" lengths, I may have misinterpreted the meaning of the "Average Route Length" field in the TSPR while updating the ridership/lengths to 2023 data. I don't quite remember in what specific way I had interpreted it, but after rereading the description I do agree that changing most of them to using the GTFS data was probably unnecessary. I do remember making those changes after noticing that the "average route length" of the R5 as provided in the 2023 report (12.5 km) seems far shorter than the distance from SFU to Downtown, but it seems the length in the 2018 report remains accurate. (Though for R6 Scott Rd, the only source I could find for route length was in the GTFS data, since the 2024 TSPR is not out yet.)

For the 99 B-Line route lengths, I simply took the lengths from the GTFS data (specifically from shapes.txt). After some more inspection, I now realize the differing lengths in that file come from the fact that the distance travelled within bus exchanges is included in the westbound route but not the eastbound, so I suppose the difference doesn't exactly matter.

Neondev1 (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

Hi, Joeyconnick. Thanks for patrolling new pages. I've declined your deletion request for a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to read the new tutorial for patrollers, criteria for speedy deletion, and particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Thanks! 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:8D79:AEC3:273:C19 (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Britt Robertson

Hello, I noticed you removed my edits to this article clarifying the different names this actress has used in her career, putting in a vaguer explanatory sentence in. If you feel it's "too early" to rename the article to Britt Robertson-Floyd, fine, I didn't argue with that, but I otherwise disagree with your position and find the priorr wording clearer and the inclusion of when she used one name or another to be worthwhile information for someone reading up about this person. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

PS didn't ignore you... it hasn't even been a week.

When someone changes to a married name is possibly entirely irrelevant (unless there's some weird case where they then became easily confused with another person) and definitely not significant enough for the lead. Should we mention they've gone by other names? In most cases, yes (if they were notable under the other name(s). Do we need to include a timeline of that in the lead? No. And currently as you have it, you've only included the time for the latest name change (please note this does 100% NOT mean I think we should be providing an entire timeline... just pointing out the inconsistency and WP:UNDUE of highlighting a married name over others).

You also are editing in against MOS:NICKNAME: Anyone can figure out where "Britt" comes from if someone is named "Brittany". —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Template talk:Canadian banks‎, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Perhaps you could use the template's talk page to discuss this before constantly reverting? Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I have consensus. You're the one being challenged. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Instant-runoff voting regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Instant-runoff voting.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

(180 Degree Open Angedre (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC))

East Vancouver: Revision history

Hi Joeyconnick, You removed the list of secondary schools I added to the Education section of the East Vancouver article as "Unsourced". What sources would be appropriate? The existing three items in that section are not specifically sourced, beyond being internally linked to their Wikipedia pages, which I did with the secondary schools.

This is my first Wikipedia contribution, so I'd just like to understand the guidelines. Thanks. Born-a-Weegie (talk) 03:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It's unclear whether such a list is needed, even: why do we think it is? Does it help readers understand East Vancouver as a topic?

One of the common mistakes at Wikipedia is including information simply because we have it, when in reality we shouldn't be so indiscriminate.

But preferably there should be a 3rd party reliable source that lists schools in East Vancouver. If the other 3 aren't sourced, feel free to remove them. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Apology/discussion

Hi, just wanted to reply to one of your comments, and to apologize for some earlier edits, when I was newer a few months ago and still learning the ropes.

Instead, certain editors (by which I again mean CLC) seems to prefer to make repeated multi-thousand-word edits with little to no edit summaries across multiple sections, including putting back changes where they've been clearly reverted based on detailed rationales.

First, I wanted to say I'm sorry for doing this in my earliest edits, e.g. the strikethrough changes. At the time, I wasn't paying any attention to the edit histories, so I didn't even realize these changes had been partially reverted, because I didn't get a revert notification; I thought I just hadn't committed them. Since I saw your comment on my talk page about being frustrated with overly-long edits, I've been working to cut back on that and provide better edit summaries. I appreciate your patience, since I've only really been editing for a few months so far.

Yeah a draft of an existing article shouldn't exist. Instead, editors (by which I mean mainly CLC) should focus on making small changes (at most one section at a time if making extensive edits to a section) with clear edit summaries so other editors can track what's been added, deleted, and transformed and get a good overview of what's changed.

On this topic: The reason I created a draft was to try and follow this advice. You're right that I prefer to edit articles holistically, since I often find myself referencing different sections or moving between them. However, since you'd previously raised complaints about the difficulty of reviewing such edits, I decided to go through with it on a separate page outside mainspace, so I could make large edits there, then copy-and-paste small pieces into the main article to make them easier to review. My edit to the lead on October 6th was me starting this copy-paste process (you can see that I finished drafting that section prior to this). – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bold, or disruptive?

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 180 Degree Open Angedre (talk) 10:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

About Twink Article

Okay, I get that you've hijacked the 'Twink' article and don't consider my edits welcome. F*ck it, I don't care! Jaffley (talk) 03:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

FYI

User talk:Aoidh#Block evasion Moxy🍁 04:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jennifer Lawrence. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Which part of "Lawrence further said her pictures had been intended for Hoult during their relationship, and that unlike other victims of the incident, she did not plan to sue Apple Inc." was hard to comprehend? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The Babysitter

Why does it matter though? Plot summaries usually refer to the characters by their full names when first introduced. It doesn't get in the way and doesn't disrupt the flow of the article either.Futuremoviewriter (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Erasure

I'm not interested in edit warring. If you are indeed not interested in erasing trans actor community connections, perhaps reconsider your deletionist approach. Lastchapter (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk order

I noticed you changed the positioning of the Talk Can Eng template on a few pages where I had added it. It's not a big deal but I want to bring WP:TALKORDER to your attention. The language template goes above the banner shell, not under it. Thanks! Masterhatch (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh sorry... wasn't aware. Seems weird to me but I'll keep that in mind going forward. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree it does seem weird. I used to put it below the banner shell too until I ran across that page. Masterhatch (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate you letting me know in a non-judgmental way! I will try to emulate that next time I point out guidelines to someone. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Trout

 Self-trout My bad; I wasn't thinking. ToThAc (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

No worries... I double- and tripled-checked before I re-reverted just to be sure the pages were showing up in the expected places. With some of the district articles going by "Regional District of X" rather than "X Regional District", it makes sense it can get confusing. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Scream 5 Infobox

Ahhh, I see. I had to find a clearer full size resolution on eBay. That's so annoying that on one entry, they only list half of the cast, while they list practically the entire cast on the sequel lol. But it makes sense I guess; Gallner was a cameo, Brown was unknown, but Minnette was well-known though so that was strange. Madison was pre-Anora, so who knew the psycho chick on fire would win the Oscar?! Love it.

Ulrich was a shock omission, but they probably wanted his appearance to be a secret/surprise until you saw the movie. Alas, they're in the cast section, so that's all that matters. So cast section = credits order, while infobox = stick to either billed above title or just billed on the poster period, correct? --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 14:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah it's a bit loosey-goosey... I think on some articles, they use the full end credits in the infobox but most I've seen follow the poster billing block and its order. And yeah it is annoying to track down a full-res version of the poster given how IMDb makes it so you have to inspect source, essentially, to see the posters at full resolution.

For the article cast section order vs. the infobox cast order: I myself usually steer clear of getting involved in article cast order battles for films because, unlike with TV shows (MOS:TVCAST), there are no clear rules. I've seen some follow the infobox (i.e. nearly always billing block) order and then add in the rest (probably in full credits order), which makes sense to me because then the two lists are consistent to a point and then the article list just has more entries.

Apparently one or more of the X-Men films have different cast orders in the start credits vs. the end credits, and so some people swear the end credits are definitive, but honestly sometimes there are two sets of end credits: the flashy decorative ones and then the more text-based ones that are usually more complete, and at that point, people are usually just arguing on an "I like it more" basis. I think there it was someone who insisted on putting Hugh Jackman quite high up because of his status in the industry now, conveniently neglecting the fact that for the first film, and arguably the second, he had a much lower profile than Stewart or McKellen. That was the fight that made me decide film cast order battles weren't worth it. 😂 —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Requesting input on possible page move

Hello, Joeyconnick! I'm reaching out by recommendation of Johnny Au. You are a much more senior Wikipedian than I, so I thought you may be able to point me in the right direction.

The BLAST network is a previous iteration of a rapid transit plan in Hamilton. The project has since evolved to include greater scope, and now carries the name (Re)envision the HSR. However, I have to assume this is the working project name and not the final name of the network. Because of this odd limbo state, I am hesitant to put the page move template on the page, and I have never proposed a page move before.

If you have some time, could you take a look at the page for me and let me know your opinion on its destiny? We could:

• Keep the article as-is, including both the original plans as well as future plans, with potential for a second article once the new system is more concrete
• Keep the article as-is and move it to a new name once announced
• Begin the process to move the page to the new name now

If this is outside of your wheelhouse and you know of someone who might know better, that would also be helpful! Hamilton's transit articles have been collecting dust for a while, so this is my attempt at drawing some attention to it outside of the talk page. Thanks in advance for your help! JaredTamana (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi JaredTamana... appreciate you seeking out other folks' advice—few of us at Wikipedia engaged with that much humility early on, me included.

(Or maybe I shouldn't speak for anyone but myself: I definitely didn't!)

I'm for sure not the be-all and end-all of how this should be handled and until you brought it up, I'd never heard of the article, but based on what you've said and the details in the page itself, mainly:

In 2019, the City of Hamilton launched a project entitled (Re)envision the HSR, which was an evolution on the BLAST network. The new plan includes an additional E-Line. As a result, the BLAST network branding is no longer used.

I would go with your first option... keep the page where it is, maybe set up a redirect of the new name (which is, uhm, ugh... but ours is not to reason why, I guess?) to the existing page.

I would probably restructure the existing BLAST page a bit to have a section actually called "(Re)envision the HSR" (is HSR here high-speed rail? because it REALLY shouldn't have a "the" in front of it, then) with all the 2019 onwards stuff in it, then the redirect could target that until there were enough details to flesh out a full article on the new project.

I think the key here is I would have a new article for the new plan and keep BLAST as historical. Much like Relief Line (Toronto) is separate from the successor project, Ontario Line. Once RHSR (or whatever they call it) has enough details to warrant its own article, then most of its content from BLAST can be moved over with a summary left on the BLAST page.

Hmmn... okay, thinking about it more, this article doesn't have the kind of long detailed historical info that Relief Line (Toronto) does. And I see you've anticipated that perhaps the current RHSR may not (hopefully won't!) stick.

Okay... I think probably keep it where it is for now (since RHSR does not seem to be a WP:COMMONNAME), put the redirect in place, restructure the article to include a section on the 1981 plan to use SkyTrain tech, a section on BLAST, and a 2019 onwards section on RHSR. Then if RHSR catches on/becomes the main brand, move it there, otherwise move it to the future name.

Like I said, that's just me. I think the main factors are:

• the existing article isn't super-detailed
• the "new" RHSR moniker does not really seem to have caught on (or at least we aren't citing sources that seem to be using it)

So there doesn't seem to be enough material to support both a separate BLAST article and a new article on RHSR, but BLAST is clearly the better-known concept, so (again, to me) moving it seems premature. A redirect and a bit of restructuring of the article to highlight the 3 main phases/eras (1980s, BLAST, RHSR) seem like a good way forward.

Sorry... this is me working it through in basically real time LOL

Hope my somewhat stream of consciousness remarks help! —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the prompt reply! Of course I won't take your opinion as gospel (that's what the move consultation is for anyways, right?) but your take is highly appreciated.

HSR in this case is the Hamilton Street Railway. The name is a holdover from its legacy of streetcars. Naturally many in Hamilton are excited to see rails going back in the road, even if this has been well over a decade in planning already.

The redirect is a good idea, I didn't think of that, and an article restructuring makes sense to me. This at least gives a little more clarity for the next few years while we wait for the City and Metrolinx to figure out the specifics.

Hope to see you around! JaredTamana (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Prompt: well honestly I was tickled to be asked (and to be recommended by Johnny Au) 😀 so I figured the least I could do was provide my take in a timely manner

HSR: ah I see... that makes more sense!

Figure out the specifics: ah transit in Ontario! Fingers crossed they get some clarity and shovels in the ground soon. 🤞

See you around, I'm sure! —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

You are very welcome too! Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)