User Talk: Joeyconnick

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(30d)
| archive = User talk:Joeyconnick/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 10
| maxarchivesize = 50K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 4
}}
{{Archives}}

Per cent and percent

While percent is an accepted form of spelling, the preferred spelling by the Government of Canada, Termium Plus, and the Canadian Press style guide in particular (and thusly the widely accepted standard in Canadian media and in the communications profession) is ''per cent'' with the spacing, and thusly is the reflective predominant spelling in Canadian reliable sourcing. Leventio (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

:Plenty of Canadian sources use ''percent'', so going through like a bot and changing them is unnecessary and inappropriate.
:Additionally, we don't style based on specialist sources. See WP:SSF ↗. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
::I wasn't suggesting we style based off a specialist source. I'm saying we need to style based off the predominant form of spelling in that national variety's reliable source.
::And when it comes to the common spelling in reliable sources from Canada (ie. media articles and the government), nearly all conform to either Termium of CP style (or a variation of CP... not to mention nearly all Canadian university style guides that also conform to this and thus their scholarly papers).
::I am not denying that percent is a common form of spelling with the general public, but our conformity is to the common form ''in'' reliable sources, not anecdotal evidence or a colloquial spelling. Leventio (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Again, we don't style based on government sources or a particular national style guide. If the bulk of Canadian sources used ''per cent'', then okay. But you can pick up many Canadian newspapers (which are reliable sources) and they will use ''percent''. MOS:RETAIN ↗ applies. If we can find ''percent'' in Canadian dictionaries, and we can, then ''percent'' is 100% acceptable. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:41, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
::::I fear you may have some personal bias in this because this statement here: {{tq|But you can pick up many Canadian newspapers (which are reliable sources) and they will use percent}}. Because that is just untrue to a statistically provable level.
::::I dare you to find me a newspaper which more often publishes percent instead of per cent or perform a stat analysis on it. Slip ups with Torstar, CBC, Postmedia publications exist and you can find the random one article that uses it, but ALL major media publications style guides conform to the per cent spelling as all those publications style guides are emulating CP style, and you will actually see ALL of these papers use per cent predominantly (and I can tell you with certainty being quite involved in that industry). Like really look at a bunch of random Canadian news articles, and it pretty clear which side is heavily favoured pretty quickly, same applies with government sources and academic papers that conform to Canadian postsecondary style guides.
::::I've provided multiple style guides that state this is the preferred spelling (style guides that are the predominant ones used by major reliable publications in Canada). You've yet to provide any source whatever, but your own insistence that ''percent'' is an acceptable term (which again, its validity was never my issue, my issue is that the preferred spelling in all reliable sources in Canada PREDOMINANTLY favour using per cent. Leventio (talk) 07:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::I'm sorry... you just went through, bot-like, a bunch of Canadian articles, and decided their use of percent had to conform to your idea of how it should be spelled (or, really, styled). Did you ever ask yourself why it was that in all these Canadian articles (around 50 on my watchlist){{snd}}where everyone is using colour, modelled, labelled, neighbourhood, centre, metre, analyze i.e. clearly Canadian spellings{{snd}}why it is that percent seems to be the outlier?
:::::Is it that this... what? Americanism? just escaped everyone's notice? Or is it that most people in Canada use percent and not per cent and so everyone understands (well, {{em|nearly}} everyone, apparently) that there's no issue with percent? —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::It is in all these Canadian articles because as I stated, it is quite prevalent with the general colloquial public, and editors and information added over time that is not caught, or in some cases, editors running spell checks scripts not conformed to local varieties enmass (not to mention this question seemingly ignores the many articles they're absent from).
::::::In any case, Wikipedia conforms to the language that is found in reliable sources at the end of the day, not anecdotal colloquialisms. And as demonstrated with what I've said, it is seemingly clear that most reliable sources (be it major media publications and content they publish through their adoption of CP Style), government sources (via Termium Plus) and scholarly sources (for the authors that conformed to their postsecondary guides), it is pretty evident that per cent is the predominant form of spelling in reliable sources for Canada.
::::::If we have the option to choose between two forms, I don't see why all the sudden we've decided to forsake the common Wikipedia practice of choosing the spelling option that best conforms to the form used in reliable sources for the sake of not troubling an unaware general public.
:::::: Also, we have similar issues with words like enrol and travelled (which are things I also look to change every so often in PostEdu articles, enrollment in particular being a bane). Doing localized spelling sweeps of past edits made by unaware editors isn't something unique to percentages so long as it conforms to the wider reliable source's spelling. Leventio (talk) 08:01, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Again, Wikipedia has its own style guide. We don't follow specialized styles for particular topics or groups of topics.
:::::::But also:
:::::::1 ↗
:::::::2 ↗
:::::::3 ↗
:::::::4 ↗
:::::::5 ↗
:::::::So a number of sources (CBC, governmental) where it's indicated either is acceptable or percent is being used. Hardly anecdotal.
:::::::The use of percent or per cent in Canada is not specified in MOS:PERCENT ↗, probably because people can tell either is acceptable here. The only thing that is clear is that percent is used in America and per cent is used in the UK. —Joeyconnick (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I mean, I did say slip up ups occur with these publications, hence the CBC occurances (though note how its common per cent common use is reflected in even today's news SpaceX ipo CBC ↗). The Canadian Style in turn is a retired style (though that said, that is indeed a style guide that does use percent)
::::::::But again, I was not saying one was incorrect, I'm saying which is more common in reliable sourcing (ie. media publications), the majority of which, CBC included, conform to a form of CP style and spelling (and again to stress, my point is '''not''' to follow a specialized guide, my point is to follow the predominant variant used in reliable sourcing).
::::::::That said, this isn't really an issue I'm going to push that much further, as the conversation has made me question whether its predominance in published content outweighs really outweighs general public's use in the first place. Leventio (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mindhunter (TV series) ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Pierce ↗ was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SelTrac ↗

Just to let you know of this deletion discussion as it needs more discussion and consensus. Johnny Au (talk/contributions ↗) 00:25, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

June 2026

30px|alt=Stop icon ↗ '''You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war ↗, according to the reverts you've made to :The Alienist (TV series) ↗.''' This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate ↗ with others, avoid editing disruptively ↗, and try to reach a consensus ↗ – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:
# {{strong|Edit warring is disruptive behavior ↗ – regardless of how many reverts you have made;}}
# {{strong|Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.}}
You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page ↗ and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard ↗ or seek dispute resolution ↗ if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection ↗. {{strong|If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked ↗ from editing.}}  MarconiCheese (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Line 5 Eglinton accessibility

These pieces aren't merely "news" ("WP:NOTNEWS ↗") but about the design and functionality of the stations, which is discussed in the article at several turns and is thus on-topic. Where else would the content belong? Metrolinx isn't ignoring it; it sounds like there will be some redesigning.

Also, I wrote of the new section "to be expanded", but you didn't give me a chance to do that. Just found a few more sources this morning.Empty desk (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

:As it was worded, it was simply reporting one instance of one complaint by one group. This is classic WP:NOTNEWS ↗ (and also WP:UNDUE ↗): we don't list every time some subject received a complaint by some group. There would need to be a hell of a lot more discussion of this in 3rd party, reliable sources for it to warrant inclusion, and (as previously mentioned), there would need to be sustained coverage of the issue, not just a flurry of reports of a handful of complaints in a relatively short period of time. —01:49, 5 July 2026 (UTC) Joeyconnick (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
Reading the WP:NOTNEWS ↗ rulesas linked, the relevant portions of which are as follows:

"Even when citing recent news articles as sources, ensure the Wikipedia articles themselves are not…News reports: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style".

This is about the notability of article topics, not what's included in them. Line 5 is a very significant topic and it's okay to be detailed.

Looking at the "Construction timeline", there are a good number of one-off events, including defects in construction that were fixed, accidents, etc. because it's a history. There won't be "sustained coverage" because the problems were solved.

"As it was worded, it was simply reporting one instance of one complaint by one group. "

It's two disability groups, one independent critic, the city council, the TTC and Metrolinx. Here It sounds like the stations' design will be modified as a result of the criticism. That's very much in line with the construction history generally, so maybe that's a better place to put it.Empty desk (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

July 2026

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 100px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Thank you for continuing to revert inappropriate edits to Jonathan Brandis ↗, which seem to crop up all the time. '''Bgsu98''' (Talk) 20:29, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
|}

:Thanks {{u|Bgsu98}}... appreciate the recognition! —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2026 (UTC)