User talk:Joeyconnick

Droop quota

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)

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)

Short films and recurring roles on television

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)

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)

Compass card hatnote

I left a message on Talk:Compass card (British Columbia). Let's discuss there. –DMartin 22:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

Hi,

@Joeyconnick: Regarding treating it in sentence case, according to MOS:LISTCASE, lowercase is best reserved for glossary entries where it is important to convey whether something is usually capitalised or not. Also it is not a complete sentence. So, does this not apply to the situation? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

No... check out role descriptions for nearly all filmographies... they are sentence case, not all lowercase. These are not glossary entries, so even if LISTCASE applied (and I would argue it doesn't, as a table is materially different way to present information than a list), Use sentence case by default for list items, whether they are complete sentences or not. Sentence case is used for around 99% of lists on Wikipedia. Title case (as used for book titles) is not used for list entries. applies.

Also rendered in sentence case are the entries in the frequent "Notes" columns.

Whether something is a complete sentence or not in a table cell has absolutely zero bearing on whether you capitalize it. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick Doesn't capitalising the profession confuse the reader? According to MOS:FILMCAST, it should not be capitalised to distinguish between the character name and the job when used in place of the character name. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick Since you don't have an opinion on this, I think it would be a good idea to start a discussion. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

In what way don't I have an opinion? What led you to that determination? Because I took more than 12 hours to reply to you?

No, it doesn't confuse the reader. Why are you making problems that don't exist? Cell data should be consistently rendered in sentence case. Period. There's no distinction between a character name and a role where someone is credited as a generic e.g. "The nurse" or "Officer" etc. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Compromise

I think we need to come to a consensus on the Escape Room conflict. The height she fell is fatal, but the second movie’s original version shows that she’s available. So we need to compromise on this. HiGuys69420 (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

No, we don't... status quo is that if you watch the first movie, the story is she died. The fact they retconned that occurrence doesn't change how we summarize the first movie. The summary for the sequel explains "surprise! she didn't die!"

This description has persisted for years... because it's accurate. One person not agreeing does not require a new consensus. There is a consensus which is time tested. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

k so what's our consensus? HiGuys69420 (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I meant agreement? Is it basically keep it as it is and is it okay if I add an efn to the sequel article stating like "As depicted in Escape Room (2018)"? HiGuys69420 (talk) 05:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)