Jump to content

User talk:Joeyconnick

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TV seasons[edit]

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

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

Hi... I think you have mistaken what happened. I moved a single category and then the articles that had been in it. So at most you would have gotten one "your edit was reverted" notification based on my actions. Maybe other people did similar things and sent more notifications your way but that's not on me.
And of course, you could have just moved the categories yourself when you saw that others had edited the season-related categories of various articles amidst a lot of TV-related renames happening, instead of undoing a bunch of other people's work, which no doubt might have generated a lot of revert notifications for them. I also question whether the sky would truly have fallen if you had left the red-linked new categories alone for a short period until people got around to moving them.
Jumping right to "I'm going to report you!" is also not a great look, especially for an admin—hardly going by AGF. Especially since I did move the category first and then update the categories on the articles in question. It was other people, in the midst of moving the articles to the new naming convention, who had changed those articles' categories first without moving the categories... which, as far as I can tell, is not a crime and is not against any particular guideline. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Les Misérables, defaultsort issue[edit]

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

If the wrong category sorting because of shitty DEFAULTSORT values on a handful of other articles offends you so much, feel free to fix them. But mangling a DEFAULTSORT value just so it sorts "properly" in a particular already-broken context because other articles are clearly using the wrong DEFAULTSORT values is ridiculous, as is then coming to my talk page and ordering me about with your "you must now do the work" edict.
Please also note that I am apparently not the only one who understands how to do DEFAULTSORT properly. Are you gonna go attack that editor and order them around too because they're not using your broken format? —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I caused any offence. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Droop quota[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Short films and recurring roles on television[edit]

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

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

Hi Mmberney,
Thanks for your questions. First, I should note that many, many... really very many pages exist at Wikipedia that aren't necessarily following guidelines, so it's not surprising you may see some filmographies that include uncited short films without their own articles added by enthusiastic editors who aren't necessarily aware of the various guidelines we ought to be following.
Basically not listing short films is a result of WP:NFSOURCES: short films are unlikely to have received much, if any, coverage in independent reliable sources. If they have, great! Those can be cited and the film can be included. If said short film has an article, then the article itself should include suitable sources, so the short film can be included on that basis... I guess citing one or more of those sources in the filmography table could also be done but I myself wouldn't fault someone for not doing so.
Full-length films, by contrast, generally would have received more coverage, so by default they are left in even if they don't have an article or sources aren't provided for them.
There's also a WP:INDISCRIMINATE argument to be made that we don't need, as a general readership reference, to provide exhaustive filmographies of every single actor.
Recurring status in television series: ah yes, a grey area for sure. While there's a clear definition for main roles (actors listed in the main credits—usually these are title credits), for recurring it's a rule of thumb. For most, it's 3 or 4 appearances in a season or more, although that coalesced when (US TV) seasons were more like 20 or 22 episodes, not, as they sadly are frequently now, 13 or 8 or even 6. I would say for miniseries and short seasons, the bar for inclusion might drop as low as 2 (say 2 out of 4, 2 out of 6). Certainly a non–main cast actor appearing in most or all of season's episodes would count as "recurring". So in nearly all cases, if someone is listed as "Guest role" (rather than "Recurring role"), their episode count should not be ≥4.
If there's disagreement, people can discuss with other engaged editors at the TV series' Talk page and come to consensus. Or discuss at WT:WikiProject Television.
Hope that helps! —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]