User talk:Joeyconnick/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

British Columbia

Hi, not sure why you had revoked the official status of the English of the province of British Columbia (BC). English and French are both the official languages of Canada, nationally. Each of the provinces of Canada can either choose either English, or French, or both, to be their official language(s) in all legal proceedings, government services, used as the language of instruction in public schools, as well as for street signs.

So do you feel that British Columbia should not have an official language at the provincial level or do you think we should make all commonly spoken languages to be official languages of BC? After English, the most common languages spoken at home are Cantonese and Mandarin, Punjabi, German, Tagalog, French, Korean, Spanish, and Farsi (ref url=https://www.welcomebc.ca/Choose-B-C/Explore-British-Columbia/Language-in-B-C)

The flag of the province of British Columbia includes the flag of England inside its own flag. British Columbia was once and long occupied by the British army and many English people migrated from England. The English language is crucial to the future of the province, it is the official language of Canada, so as it's the official language of British Columbia, and so does in the "de facto" status as everybody in BC speaks English as their everyday language.

Since the location of the province of British Columbia is just next to the state of Washington, USA, which makes English even more crucial in conducting businesses in English. English is also becoming the global language, so everyone around the world would learn it so that everyone understands each other. My question to you is: do you consider it's a good thing that when everybody speaks a different language and not be able to understand each other?

Even if English does not have the official status in British Columbia, don't you think the province should make it the official language? Or do you feel we should make French or any other languages to be the official language(s) of BC? That is just a ridiculous thought if English shouldn't be the official language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hastymashi (talk • contribs) 04:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The field in the infobox is for languages that are defined by law as the official language(s) of the jurisdiction. BC has no laws which set an official language. That doesn't mean I (or anyone else) think the government or most of its populace conducts its business in Italian or Hindi or Klingon... it just means that, unlike with Canada at the federal level, there is no legislation that says, "Our official language is English." —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

So the "Official Languages Act" really has nothing to do with British Columbia and it's not applicable, what's the point of it? No one really has to follow

Definition lists

This is completely acceptable markup. Semi-colon then colon entries are acceptable and recommended per MOS:DLIST. "See also" is not a header, nor is it just there for "styling", it's a definition, hence we use definition lists. This is actually even supported by MOS:PSEUDOHEAD - check the last two lines in the "Acceptable" entry. Almost exact copy of what the edit above is achieving. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Alex... I believe you have it backwards, although we can ask folks more familiar with WP:ACCESS. MOS:DLIST, you'll note, always has one single ";" and ":" pair, not ";" followed by a lot of ":". If your interpretation were correct, we'd basically be saying that this template and that template and that other template were definitions of "see also" (or descriptions of what "see also" means) and that each different template was an alternate definition/description of "see also". In fact, "see also" is introducing the elements in the list that follow, which is not a term/definition pair. So when I invoked MOS:PSEUDOHEAD, that's what I meant: "see also" is functioning as a header/heading that describes the section/collection it precedes, much like a section heading describes/introduces the section that follows. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Rapid transit in Canada

FYI: For a third time (as per older discussions), Mattximus wishes to include LRT in the article Rapid transit in Canada, thus redefining "rapid transit" to include LRT and perhaps BRT. Mattximus justifies putting Line 5 Eglinton into the article because Line 5 is partly underground and because it has been described as "rapid transit" on its official website. The discussion is at Talk:Rapid transit in Canada#Line 5 of the Toronto Subway is considered rapid transit. There are 4 supporting this change and 3 opposed. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization

Special:Diff/891566773 "Minister" should be capitalized when used in this context. Jon Kolbert (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time to assist my student KaitTip on the One Tree Hill (TV series) edits. I've run this course/assignment three times now and this is one of the most substantive engagements I've seen Etherfire (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh you're welcome... I don't feel like I did very much, just pointed them in the direction of some good resources. Thanks for making Wikipedia part of your coursework! —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Vancouver School Board

Oh, I missed that text! Thanks for catching that. I'd think the best approach is removing all older list of trustees, but retain the text somehow with a link to the appropriate election pages with the full lists of trustees... though that's a task for another day. Thoughts? Nfitz (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I saw your TTC subway edit. There's a story there ... by the annual survey they jumped ahead of Montreal - but the reason is that TTC had erroneously been reporting linked rather than unlinked trips for years! There's a tweet somewhere from TTC admitting to the error! That would take some delicate wording ... maybe one day! Nfitz (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Here for the drama?

Appearently, you like drool but unable to see Screen Actors Guild Award below. Can you quote for that alleged screenreaders who may be having an issue so we should avoid using rowspans? Sebastian James what's the T? 20:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Drool? I'll pretend you are assuming good faith and try to explain: rowspans are not problematic in and of themselves. So the SAG one is fine because it's happening in the same year. But when you start rowspanning across different years or get something like this:

A	B	C	H
D		E
F	G

...you start running into problems (both technical and also in terms of human parsing). So the best practice is to avoid having a cell span more rows than the cell in the column to its immediate left.

So this is fine:

2006	Golden Globe Awards	Category 1
	Primetime Emmy Awards	Category 2
	SAG Awards	Category 3
		Category 4

because for any cell, the cell in the column to the left's rowspan is always equal or greater than its own rowspan. Or basically, the rowspan for "SAG Awards" doesn't exceed the rowspan for 2006—it's contained within it. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

redundant parameters

If it was a script that made this edit, it could use some tweaking. See this citation where a redundant parameter error occurs because |publisher=[[CraveOnline]] was changed to |work=[[CraveOnline]] while |website=ComingSoon.net is already in the template.

The citation was repaired with this edit.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Ghost Whisperer edit

Why was my edit reverted. I made a legitimate edit. It is a fact that Ghost Whisperer is available for streaming on Hulu. B.R. Esquivel 06:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BEBO1986 (talk • contribs)

It was unsourced and poorly worded. In addition, MOS:TV indicates we don't randomly add all ways a series is available, especially via streaming as that can change over time. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

👍 cool https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/cbs-hulu-expand-licensing-deal-678859 B.R. Esquivel 06:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BEBO1986 (talk • contribs)

Discussion at WP:MCQ#Canadian coinage

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ#Canadian coinage. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Joeyconnick. Perhaps you can help sort this out? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I really liked your recent edit in Person of Interests article Jojojeffrey (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Removing MLA lists from BC ridings

Hi, I noticed you removing MLA lists from BC ridings, citing they're duplicating information with election results? I'm not sure if you've come across any articles on districts outside of BC, but almost every one has a list of legislators. Why should BC be any different? -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi... it's not about BC being different, it's that often it's the case there's collections of articles where a particular decision has been made once and then duplicated among the collection of similar articles, but that doesn't mean that particular decision is a good one—just one that was propagated and no one has fixed it previously. In this case, the new and extremely poorly formatted tables clearly duplicate the info in the election results tables. Should there be a mention of notable MLAs (like the current one, the first one, and any others that stand out [given sourcing])? Sure. Should there be a table replicating info that is generally right below said table, with no new sourcing or context? I would argue no. Either one (the summary table) or the other (the collection of election results) suffice. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you will find that most people in the community will disagree with you, because it does not exactly replicate information (often these lists include which Parliament the MLA was in, for example), and find their inclusion useful. I think I'll bring this up with the rest of the community. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

There is indeed a longstanding community consensus that MLA lists are necessary in an electoral district's article, and are not duplicative of the ballot count tables. For starters, the ballot count tables link to the [Year] British Columbia general election articles, but not to the "[Ordinal Rank] Parliament of British Columbia" lists (which is where the MLA tables are supposed to link) — but in the context of an electoral district's article, both sets of links are necessary. The articles also have to contain a list that goes through the MLA succession in bam-bam-bam fashion with no non-MLA names in between to confuse anybody; for starters, the BC editor contingent used to have a really bad habit, which still hasn't always been consistently cleaned up in every article yet, of sorting the election results templates in alphabetical order by party, instead of putting the winner(s) at the top where they're supposed to be, thus making the election results tables an even more confusing failure at showing MLA successions than they already were. As well, in the event of a redistricting, the election results tables also don't contain a way to place headers or footers indicating what other articles to go to if you want to continue following the area's political history. And furthermore, especially back in the era when BC had multi-member districts, if two MLAs were elected in election year but then one resigned or died and triggered a by-election between elections while the other stayed on, then the election results tables completely fail to adequately clarify who served alongside who at all. So a table listing the MLAs in succession order is necessary and is not redundant to the election results tables, and one BC-based editor doesn't get to make up special rules for BC that differ from the rules everywhere else. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Bearcat... would have been more appropriate at the noticeboard where more people could engage in the discussion. Also, not me trying to make "special rules" and you should be assuming more good faith here: again, just because it's one way somewhere else is not a reason in and of itself to do it elsewhere or continue with the practice—then there'd be zero change ever. And none of this addresses the fact that the edits have other problems. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I posted this comment here before you responded to Earl's post at the noticeboard. But at any rate, you're absolutely free at any time to propose improvements or changes to the template format, if you perceive problems with it. But simply removing them from electoral district articles altogether is not on your list of options — every electoral district's article across Canada, whether federal, provincial or territorial, requires a section which lists the MPs/MLAs separately from the election results, and the only room for debate is in how it should be formatted. For example, look at Nickel Belt (provincial electoral district), where the same type of table is coded in a completely different way that already resolves some of your stated issues and could be easily added to the BC articles too. But the information has to be present in the district articles as a dedicated section, and what you're raising is merely stylistic issues that should be brought forward for discussion — so you're absolutely free to propose changes to how the tables are formatted, but they have to remain in the district articles in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

By "the template format", I take it you mean Wikipedia:WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada? Or {{CanMP}}? But anyway, guess that's moot. Pretty sure one editor doesn't get to dictate what options are and aren't open to any other editor, or what has to remain or not remain in any particular article, or set the terms of what can and cannot be debated—apart from violations of actual policy, everything else is guidelines, not requirements. I appreciate the actual factual points you've raised about how these tables provide info that isn't merely duplicating the ballot counts but your "father knows best" tone doesn't do your arguments any favours. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on consensus established by the community, and WikiProject Canada has long had a consensus that such lists were warranted. So this isn't "one editor dictating what options are and aren't open to any other editor, or what has to remain or not remain in any particular article" — established consensus binds both of our hands, and is the final word until such time as you successfully establish a new consensus to overturn the old one. It's the rules you and I both have to follow until such time one of us can convince people to change the rules, and it's also the rules that I as an administrator have a duty to enforce until such time as one of us can convince the community to change the rules — so I apologize if it hurts your feelings, but my job on here is to ensure that community consensus and community rules are followed, complete with "father knows best" lectures if necessary, and not to necessarily be everybody's best friend. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

weather box

Just FYI This is the type of supplementary data is normally collapsed on Canadian main cities + the chart makes the whole article sidescroll MOS:DONTHIDE "Collapsed or auto-collapsing cells or sections may be used with tables if it simply repeats information covered in the main text (or is purely supplementary, e.g. several past years of statistics in collapsed tables for comparison with a table of uncollapsed current stats)"..--Moxy 🍁 06:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:TTC station

Template:TTC station has been nominated for merging with Template:TTC stations. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. BLAIXX 15:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Sandra Oh

Seeing as it’s so difficult to reply directly to you about the Sandra Oh edits, I’ll do it here! Mexico is a Central American country rather than North American, isn’t it? Scf1985 (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Scf1985: Mexico is a North American country. TheDoctorWho (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dan Miller (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

BC Conservative Party

Can you please inform me why you are insisting on removing my edits from the BC Conservative Party article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourreliablesources (talk • contribs) 06:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Yourreliablesources: they need to be sourced. Which I've explained twice now: read the edit summaries. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Mindhunter (TV series)#Requests for comment (RfC) for Sonny Valicenti

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Mindhunter (TV series)#Requests for comment (RfC) for Sonny Valicenti. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

508 Lake Shore

Hello. I am curious why the edit by User:2607:FEA8:3460:14E4:B994:3207:902B:94A5 was backed out for the reason "Improperly sourced". I would say the source (The Coupler, a TTC monthly inhouse periodical) is a reliable source; however, the page needs to be archived as it will change within a month. Just curious. I was planning to make similar mods on Labour Day (on the night before 508 reinstatement). TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

That's precisely it: it was a bare URL with no archive, which given that page changes regularly is insufficient as far as sourcing goes. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Reason to include Taylor Swift's involvement in 'Cats' in the 'Les Miserables' article

I saw that information from the Les Miserables about Taylor Swift eventually doing one of Tom Hooper's films Cats after not getting the role of Eponine was deleted. The reason why I added that information was because the articles for Cinderella and Dumbo say that Emma Watson and Will Smith were in the running for the lead parts in those respective movies, but they ultimately ended up not playing those roles. The articles say that Watson and Smith went on to instead do Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin, respectively. Should those bits of information from those article be deleted as well? Or should the information about Swift's involvement in Cats be added back into the Les Miserables article? And1987 (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

JOBTITLE

You do realize WP:JOBTITLE applies to prose writing style in the article body, and not to the office= field in an infobox, right? Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually no, I wasn't aware infoboxes were exempt from the WP:MOS guidelines. Can you point me to where that is clarified? —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_officeholder#Embedding_within_a_different_infobox office = Mayor of WikipediaDeathying (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Follow simple convention and capitalize "Mayor". Every officeholder on Wikipedia follows this convention except the pages you're editing. They would make sense in lowercase if it was in a body of text, not in an infobox. Deathying (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Please check Prime Minister of Canada for an example. In the text it is written as "prime minister", but in infoboxes it is written as "Prime Minister". Deathying (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

First, there is nothing in MOS:JOBTITLE that says it only refers to running prose but not infoboxes. So just like other guidelines like MOS:FONTSIZE, it most definitely does apply to infoboxes. Second, your example is irrelevant because that's a page for the actual office, not the officeholder. And anyway, other pages not following our guidelines is not licence to not follow our guidelines elsewhere. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not an irrelevant example. Wikipedia puts these out as guides for editors. If "40th mayor of Vancouver" was correct for the infobox, it would've been that way in the example. If you're going to change the capitalization here, change it for every other officeholder on Wikipedia: all the Presidents, MPs, senators, etc. Don't edit just one page and leave it an eyesore. Deathying (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

If you disagree with my reasoning, please simply understand that this capitalization issue is currently ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography, and no consensus has been reached yet. Please keep the status quo until Wikipedia clarifies further. Deathying (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• First, if you think a single example somehow overrules a guideline, well hey I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you... Second, you seem incapable of understanding the distinction between "modified" and "unmodified": that example is correct but irrelevant because it's just "Mayor of Wikipedia", no modifier. If Robertson's or Stewart's office was just listed as "Mayor of Vancouver", then the capitalization would be correct. But it's not: it's being modified by an ordinal, so MOS:JOBTITLE indicates "mayor" should be lowercases. And no, there is no debate/unsettled nature to MOS:JOBTITLE: if there were, there would be a notice at that section. Just because a proposal's been made doesn't mean we stop following the guideline. And finally, no, just because I have brought a subset of X articles more into line with a guideline DOES NOT mean I am somehow responsible for bringing all related articles more into line in the same way. If that ridiculous assertion were true, nothing here would ever get changed, much less improve. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see Template:Infobox_officeholder/example#General_office, these are official Wikipedia infobox examples. They do not follow MOS:JOBTITLE, because titles in infoboxes are in title case. Hopefully this will settle it. Your reasoning is correct for body text, I was arguing about infoboxes.Deathying (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

RapidBus

I'm fine with the bus route connections being removed, but the major exchanges being removed makes no sense to me, you've clearly never seen the "List of bus routes in Metro Vancouver" page before. Also, January 6, 2020 has been sourced as it is in the "RapidBus is Coming" video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanCity T (talk • contribs) 14:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Re the YouTube: okay, I hadn't seen that. I've added it back in the infobox but I think it's worth noting every first page of Google news source I found says only "January 2020", which includes 3 written sources from TransLink itself. The specific "Jan 6" date is only in this one video that I've seen.

As for "List of bus routes in Metro Vancouver": yeah check the edit history—I've definitely seen it. It's a mess that needs tackling and not something I would send people to as an example of a well-organized or well-thought-out page. I've added back the list of major connections in a superior format. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Assistance

I am currently requesting your assistance and knowledge with the new Wikipedia article Malignant (2020 film), which is an upcoming film by James Wan. There are some issues that may need to be resolved and your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Kaito Nakamura (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are most welcome.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

ANI (mentioned)

Hey Joey, Just a heads up I've mentioned you at ANI, This is inregards to this discussion you participated in and the OP of that thread, Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Author versus first and last

I certainly have no preference on which one is used. Have you ever thought of asking to change the output formula of our automated fillers as I feel your in a losing battle because our autofilters do it a certain way by default.....GoogleBook cite and Refill etc...--Moxy 🍁 03:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Amy Jo Johnson; 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. TJRC (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Vancouver

I see that your edit summary here says in part "unlink common terms" but you then link Canada (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#What generally should not be linked). There really is no need for a link to Canada. Also all the things that you are unlinking tend to be linked in almost all other community articles. Non-Canadian readers are not going to understand [[Joyce Murray]] (L) and I agree that it doesn't need to be linked every time. I think that the other links should be there as they provide information not evident to non-Canadian readers. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking "However, try to be conscious of your own demographic biases – what is well known in your age group, line of work, or country may be less known in others." Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Linking of Canada was to be consistent but sure, we can leave it out. With many (most?) of the other links, the link text doesn't at all indicate where you will end up, hence removal to avoid WP:EASTER. If non-Canadians don't know what "regional district" in a Canadian context is, then they can go to one of them and find properly labelled links rather than being *whooshed* to a list of them, which still doesn't explain what regional districts are. Or regarding linking "city" to a list of cities in BC: yeah, no one could reasonably expect "city" to link to a specific list of cities and not a definition of what a city actually is. Again, clear WP:EASTER.

As for Joyce Murray, if "L" is already linked just above in the same list, then like with most tables and lists we can assume people have brains and can do pattern recognition within a single block of text. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Melissa Benoist

Hi Joeyconnick. Thanks for your help with Melissa Benoist. I think it would be best not to mention to her instagram video until we have an independent, reliable source. I expect we'll have one shortly to avoid any WP:BLPSELFPUB problems. --Ronz (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gabriel Hogan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A Man's World (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

"Disambiguation should be a last resort. "

Over at the Michelle Williams RM you wrote: "Disambiguation should be a last resort."[1]. I agree.

Do you think that should apply to disambiguation by comma in US city article titles? Because per WP:USPLACE, currently it doesn't. I think that causes confusion. See also: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#US-centric_USPLACE_continues_to_cause_confusion. --В²C ☎ 00:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

• 
• 
• 

Happy New Year!

• 
  MMXX Lunar Calendar

Joeyconnick,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

---

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– Utopes (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

Regarding this edit to justify removing the the spouse's name from the infobox, you say "non-notable/no article so not listed in infobox)". Where did you get this idea from? I see no such policy direction in Template:Infobox officeholder or Template:Infobox person. maclean (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I may be transferring that from when I've seen (many) people remove non-notable people from the family or relatives field, the idea being that unless the person being listed has an article, why are they significant enough to be listed in the infobox. However... I've looked around at some other Canadian politicians and many of them have an entry even if there's no related article, so I may have jumped the gun. I'll fix it. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

That is probably the |children= parameter. I've been told that should have a blue link if notable, and a number if not. Like, Barack Obama (blue link) or Stephen Harper (number) or Pierre Trudeau (mix). maclean (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Single vs. Stored Value Fares TransLink

I think that there should be a separation between single and stored value fares on the TransLink page fares table, especially considering that the vast majority of users pay adult stored value fares which are currently not even listed on the table. ΣΨ (talk) 07:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

That's great... and if you can do that without wiping out existing info and also be grammatical, have at it. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

What was ungrammatical about my edits? When did I wipe out existing info? Perhaps you could fix any grammar mistakes instead of reverting all of the edits? ΣΨ (talk) 07:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry... for the fare section, I missed that you rearranged some info. In some of your other edits to Metro Vancouver transit pages, though, you did remove sections that as far as I can tell should not have been removed (or at least not without better explanations). I've restored your edits to the "Fares" section on the TransLink (British Columbia) article (and made copyedits, mostly to stuff that was already there). —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Alright thanks, I appreciate your improvements, they do clarify the information more concisely, and I agree about the YVR addfare column — Preceding unsigned comment added by ΣΨ (talk • contribs) 07:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, too. 👍 —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for editing RapidBus articles and templates. Eric0892 (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks Eric0892! Appreciate your contributions too. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

A quick message of thanks

Thanks for clearing up some for me edits on the Canadian dollar articles. :) Johnnysama (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome, Johnnysama. 🙂 I appreciate your contributions too. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Translink Former Data

I've added an item to the talk page of "List of bus routes in Metro Vancouver". Your expertise on this matter would be greatly appreciated.DMBanks1 (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Quantico

The reason I changed "Seasons 2–3" to "Seasons 2 & 3" is because when it comes to episodes and/or seasons, the dash means 3 or more while the ampersand represents just 2. I meant no harm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riders&Rangers (talk • contribs) 23:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, the dash does not have a restricted or different meaning for TV episodes or seasons vs. in other situations. Per MOS:NUMRANGE, it is used for any range of numbers, even adjacent integers. Also, many (most?) TV articles use the construction "(seasons 2–3)" or "(seasons 1–2)", etc., and have for years and no one has felt the need to "correct" them. Maybe if initially the article was done up with "(seasons 2 & 3)", and then someone came along and switched all those over to using dashes (i.e. the reverse of what you did), an editor may have a case to object to that since "(seasons 2 & 3)" isn't technically incorrect (although one could argue that "2 and 3" is expressing something less continuous than "from 2 to 3" and that playing a role is more of a continuous activity). However, the use of the ampersand is certainly not more correct than the use of the dash, which is why your change was a stylistic change simply to switch to a preferred style. As a general rule, that's frowned upon. I'd also say, given the number of TV articles I've seen using the dash in this case vs. the number using ampersands, there's a much stronger case for the dash as the de facto standard. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Katherine McNamara

I'll let you make the call as to whether you think this addition is WP:UNDUE/non-notable or not. I think "no", the IP clearly thinks "yes", so I'll let you make the call... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey IJBall sorry for not replying right away. I don't really think it comes down to just my opinion, although I appreciate the vote of confidence. I lean towards your interpretation in that it seems a little bit too recent and is was (read on...) only covered in sources that are basically parroting her social media post(s)... but to be fair, there are plenty of things on wikipedia that aren't any better-sourced. I was going to say if it's just covered in marginal-ish sources that are just repeating her social media, we could drop it, but Googling her today, there's a Yahoo! Entertainment interview with her talking about it now, so it seems to have received a bit more "serious" coverage and we can probably leave it in. I mean... it's certainly more useful info than who she's dating, right? 😀 But if you feel strongly, I will back you in that it's only been covered in one major source and we're WP:NOTNEWS and we should look for WP:SUSTAINED coverage. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey, no prob... My feeling is that, currently, the whole 'Charitable works' section is probably a little WP:UNDUE – i.e. over-long – but I've moved past thinking the whole section should be removed. Often these kinds of sections tend to be far too WP:PROMO, but if she's getting actually secondary coverage for at least some of this, I don't object to keeping the section (prob. as long as it's trimmed). But it's likely better if it's not me doing the trimming in this case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)