User talk:Joeyconnick

Question about MOS changes

Hi JoeyConnick, thanks for fixing the dates on the article HSBC Canada! I have a question though or something I'd like to point out. I inserted some of the sources via the visual editor, and it seems like it's messing with the date formatting. Is there any workaround to this? Thanks and have a good day! WizardGamer775 (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry... I don't see any date formatting issues. Can you give a specific example? —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is the diff with your script assisted date correction: [1]. The date format I originally used was automatically generated by the Visual Editor. WizardGamer775 (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah... so the visual editor (def not my fave way to edit Wikipedia) defaults to yyyy-mm-dd (e.g. 2024-03-31) format. That's not a problem. The script adds:

{{Use mdy dates|date=[date]}}

to the article, which means any |date= or |access-date= etc. parameter in a reference renders their dates in mdy (mmmm d, yyyy; e.g. March 31, 2024) format.

It just also changes the underlying wikicode to reflect the chosen date format too. Unnecessary but I like it for consistency. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for clarifying it! WizardGamer775 (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

TV seasons

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)

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)

Les Misérables, defaultsort issue

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)

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)

I'm sorry if I caused any offence. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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)