User talk:Joeyconnick/Archive 4

Source for SkyTrain Distance
The only source I can find is from TransLink's GTFS data https://developer.translink.ca/ServicesGtfs/GtfsData. If you know how to read shape.txt, Canada Line to Richmond (shape 223383) have a distance of 14.4491 km, Canada Line to Airport (shape 223384) is 15.0832 km. Millennium Line (shape 223387) is 25.2961 km. For Expo Line, there is an error in the downtown portion of the shape so the distance is off by ~1km (It's been like this for more than 5 years and TransLink didn't even bothered to fix it). Another source was the original referenced "TransLink Rapid Transit Model Phase A" document you deemed obsolete. On page 12 it stated Expo Line to King George is 28.95 km outbound or 28.81 km inbound. On page 64, Canada Line from airport is 15.08 km, and on page 65, Canada Line from Richmond is 14.41 km long. Not sure source if source from API is considered "reliable", but at least it's official... Snowystar (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is the link to download the RTM document in case you need verification, as TransLink removed them from their site a long time ago. http://www.mediafire.com/file/y95j133d61ar12a/TransLink_RTM_2007.zip/file Snowystar (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Returning the Favor
Hey Joeyconnick,

I was hoping you might do me a favor and take a look at the most recent edit over at the article Returning the Favor. Another editor has consistently attempted to remove an entire section of the article regarding accolades/awards that the series has received. The awarding organization "Got Your 6" has partnered with various entertainment companies such as 21st Century Fox, NBCUniversal, CBS, HBO, Viacom and Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Lionsgate, A+E Networks, Live Nation Entertainment, UTA, 44 Blue, The Ebersol Lanigan Company, DreamWorks Animation, Endemol Shine North America, and Valhalla Entertainment. The awarding event was reported on by Variety as seen here: https://variety.com/2017/tv/news/got-your-6-veterans-the-gifted-disjointed-1202607620/. The other editor has argued that the paragraph/section of the article should be removed and cited General Notability Guidelines and Undue Weight as an issue. I may be in the wrong here but I am of the belief that the information warrants mentioning in the article given the stature of the organization within the entertainment industry and the fact that the awards event was covered by a major publication (being Variety). I don't know...maybe give the article and its edit history a look and let me know what you think. Worth noting that I've created an article for the organization here: Got Your 6. – BoogerD (talk) 05:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi ... thanks for reaching out. I may be the wrong person to ask for support on this front, though: I'm often going through and removing "awards" from tables that are non-notable ones by entertainment press outlets, like E! Online "awards" or TVLine "awards" where there's not even the pretence of an independent jury or vote or nomination process. Just because a publication or org is notable doesn't mean its awards are. I think the Variety source is a good argument for keeping mention of the Big Six award, although I think it'd be a stronger case if there were a bit more 3rd-party coverage rather than just one source.
 * I can kinda see the WP:UNDUE argument... as a prose paragraph with a lot of detail on why the show received that particular award, it really does draw a lot of focus to those awards and affords them a sort of importance that may not be appropriate. Maybe the noting of the award should be in a standard "Awards and nominations / Accolades" table? Then the entry would merely be a table row, with the implicit understanding the show may attain other honours in the future.
 * Anyway, those are my thoughts. I'll stay out of the actual editing as I have no knowledge of/interest in either the show or the org. Hope you can work out a compromise with the other editor! Happy editing 😀 —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Michael Chaves page
Hey, I'm sure you know me from creating the untitled Annabelle film page. I was wondering if you would like to join me in creating a wiki page for director Michael Chaves. I think it will be important for a page for him to be created, as he is the director of the upcoming films The Curse of La Llorona and The Conjuring 3, along with directing many episodes of Chase Champions. What do you think? Cardei012597 (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey ... thanks for your note/request. I'm a bit too real-life busy at the moment to help out with page creation. Happy editing, though! 👍 —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Page mover granted
Hello, Joeyconnick. Your account has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AJoeyconnick granted] the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when  is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:
 * Requested moves
 * Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Swarm talk  00:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Arrow (season 7)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Arrow (season 7). — Lbtocthtalk  11:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Legacies (TV series)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Legacies (TV series). — Lbtocthtalk  21:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Death Day
Gregory Butler is actually a Doctor, While tree tried to get Lori to have a bite. Also, Lori Locked Tree in to keep her from leaving. I Actually saw the film myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.140.2 (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Lori locking the door is irrelevant to the overall plot summary, which is already too long as per WP:PLOT. Also, Tree demands Lori eat the cupcake herself describes what happened but with fewer words and is more in line with WP:TONE. Finally, the Butler character is Tree's professor, so the title is both appropriate and more descriptive of his relationship with her. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at X-Men (film series). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - R9tgokunks   ⭕  07:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Update to scripts by AlexTheWhovian/Alex 21
Hello! This is a generic message created and copied to all editors using scripts that I have created. As I have recently changed my username from "User:AlexTheWhovian" to "User:Alex 21", any scripts that I have created that are listed at your common.js page may, at the moment, no longer be working. To fix this, simply update all occurrences of "User:AlexTheWhovian" to "User:Alex 21"; see here for an example. All the best! -- / Alex /21  11:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:The Conjuring 3
User:Rotanis started up a draft page for The Conjuring 3, Draft:The Conjuring 3. I edited the page a little, touched up on the formatting. If you wish, you can review the page, see if it needs more. Maybe, after more cleaning, we can make it an official article after filming starts later this season. Thoughts? Cardei012597 (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Annabelle: Creation
ᴀɴᴏɴʏᴍᴜᴤᴤ ᴜᴤᴇʀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

LGBT in Canada template
In the case of the Vancouver Queer Film Festival, the template has to link through the page's actual title rather than through the redirect — although the link gets you to the same place either way, using the redirect has an undesired effect on the template's transclusion in that page.

When a template is transcluded onto a page that's directly linked in that template, it automatically displays that recursive link as bold text instead of a clickable blue link, so that people don't accidentally click on it just to get taken right back to the same page they were already on — but if you use the redirect instead of the actual page title, then the template fails to detect that it's causing the page it's on to link back to itself, and just keeps displaying a blue link instead of converting it to bolded text like it's supposed to. If you expand the LGBT in Canada template at the bottom of the page, you'll notice that "Vancouver Queer Film Festival" is bolded like it's supposed to be — but if you change that link so that it's coming through the Vancouver Queer Film Festival's redirect instead of through the page's Out On Screen title, then you'll notice that instead of bold text, "Vancouver Queer Film Festival" just displays as a regular clickable blue link just like everything else in the template, which it's not supposed to do.

So the link has to go through the page's actual title, rather than the redirect to a subsection, so that the template knows which link to display as bold text instead of a clickable blue link. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Uhm... that really isn't a big deal or the problem you make it out to be. Given the outcome is that the template would show a link that took a reader back to the same page (while "undesired" sure, and not ideal, it's hardly a huge problem), I would prefer that and having the template actually send people where they should be specfically sent on all the other pages the template is transcluded into. It's also better future-proofing in case someone ultimately turns Vancouver Queer Film Festival into its own article one day. But I won't edit war with you over it. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Spliting discussion for Stranger Things
An article that you have been involved with (Stranger Things) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article (Stranger Things (season 1/2/3)). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at Stranger Things. Thank you. SomethingToTellYou (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Peter Witt streetcar
Do you feel like taking a stab at this? It would benefit from your editing skills. Useddenim (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Happy Death Day 2 U
Hi I noticeed you reverted my edits to Happy Death Day 2 U. I was trying to clean it up in accordance with the film article MOS which sates that: ''A production section should provide a clear and readable narrative of how the film was developed, setting out the key events that affected its production, without detailing all of the day-to-day operations or listing every piece of associated news and trivia. Try to maintain a production standpoint, referring to public announcements only when these were particularly noteworthy or revealing about the production process. Focus on information about how plot elements or settings were decided and realized, rather than simply repetitively listing their dates. Add detail about how the actors were found and what creative choices were made during casting, only including the casting date (month and year is normally sufficient) where it is notably relevant to the overall production history.""

I found that listing the director stating he had an idea for it and listing the various casting dates was not in accordance with these guidelines. I'm trying to think about how it would look in the future. It's a good start but it needed a little work. --Deathawk (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi ... I think the comments re: the director's concept for the sequel provide context for the pivot from slasher to sci-fi slasher. As for casting dates, actually the one main date listed there is when the original director and main stars were confirmed to return, so it's not just a series of dates chronicling every hiring decision made. I don't think that (relatively short) section is as problematic as you think it is. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, so I went back, and I can see your point Re:The director's comments, I took the liberty of editing it a bit to make it more clear. As for the casting, part of the reason I have a problem with it, is that the film starting shooting the same month as the announcements made, meaning this was almost entirely based around an announcement to the public rather than how things were compiled behind the scenes, that was one of the things we tried to address when updating the film's MOS a while back. Does that make sense? --Deathawk (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Untitled Annabelle film
Hello,

There is an unregistered user who keep adding January 3rd, 2020 as the release date, without adding proof. I can not find any article that proves he/she is correct, so I believe its vandalism. He will not stop, after I warned him. Can you please help? Cardei012597 (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Happy Death Day 2U promo poster.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Happy Death Day 2U promo poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Sexual assualt survivor
Does The New York Times hyphenate sexual assualt survivor? Does The Guardian hyphenate sexual assualt victims? So why should we? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because they're news sources, we're not, and we follow a different style manual than they do, which I'm guessing has different rules about the hyphen and compound modifiers? —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Correct grammar is correct grammar. WP:NOTNEWS says absolutely nothing about that. And correct grammar is not dependent on anything else. Can you please point to anyplace that uses the hyphenated phrase "sexual-assault"? The guideline about compound modifier is on a case-by-case basis, and cannot be generalised. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

In the universe of correct grammar, we use "gender-equality activist" and "sexual assault survivors". :). Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, no we don't. We don't get "correct grammar" from entertainment news sources. "gender equality" and "sexual assault" are both compound modifiers in the sentence in question so we use the same rules for both of them. If you can't see that, you don't actually understand how grammar works. That's ignoring the fact we should be maintaining consistency . Again, I refer you to MOS:HYPHEN. Either we hyphenate both or we don't hyphenate either. What part of this do you not understand? —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Were the above mentioned NYTimes and Guardian also "entertainment news sources"? Also, "you don't actually understand how grammar works" is a personal attack and I hope you don't resort to such statements anymore. This is a minor issue that I have no interest in fighting over, and I'm willing to let it go, but holier-than-thou statements from certain editors who want to undermine other's contributions by deliberately picking on minor issues is what makes it difficult to do so. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)