User Talk: Sadslug

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

Welcome!

Hi Sadslug! I noticed your contributions ↗ and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

{{Clickable button|Help:Introduction|Learn more about editing|class=mw-ui-progressive|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia ↗ page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

{{Clickable button|Wikipedia:Teahouse|Get help at the Teahouse|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

If you are not sure where to help out, try the "Suggested edits" module top left on your homepage ↗, or you can always find a task here:

{{Clickable button|Wikipedia:Task Center|Search the Task Center|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

Happy editing!  Heyallkatehere (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

My personal reasoning for written-out numbers and YYYY-MM-DD in citation templates

Hey man, I wanted to address your questions in this edit summary ↗. I personally much prefer the look of written-out numbers as long as they're not ridiculous, although this is completely up to preference. Wikipedia policy says both formats are acceptable for numbers that are one or two words. The access dates needed to be changed anyway, so I also changed the number format; it's my personal belief that there's nothing wrong with tweaking things in a Wikipedia article to your preference and seeing if those tweaks are contested. If the tweaks are contested (and again, if it's purely a preference thing), then I just leave it be.

Where I feel a bit more strongly is the YYYY-MM-DD format in citation templates. I see a lot of users changing this across various articles, clearly in good faith and what they believe to be in accordance with Wikipedia policy (and I understand where this confusion comes from), but MOS:DATEUNIFY ↗ actually specifies that dates in citation templates are exempt from having to follow the same stylisation as the rest of the article. In my opinion, YYYY-MM-DD is just simply easier to edit whether in Visual Editor or source editor. Also, templates such as Use MDY Dates are not only for tracking/maintenance but they actually adjust other formats in citation templates for the reader, so |date=2026-06-23 will appear as (June 23, 2026) on the article. This means that the only people seeing 2026-06-23 are editors, and as I said, I personally believe it's way cleaner and easier to deal with YYYY-MM-DD when editing. Lemme know what you think ~2026-32492-01 ↗ (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

:hi! thank you reaching out and explaining. i completely understand your reasoning for the date format, but i do think that it's better to keep the consistency even if the template will convert. to me, it's much easier when editing if the formats stay consistent.
:as for the numbers, i agree it's absolutely acceptable and, in most cases, better-looking for them to be spelled out, but i just don't see the benefit of spelling out a larger number if it's so close to numbers that are displayed in figures, especially if they're comparable ↗. it should generally be avoided, and i find that it mucks up the readability to have it suddenly switch. in my opinion, keeping those values concise and in figures would work better. Sadslug (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::No worries man. I've got a big overhaul of the article's promotion section that I've been working on for several days (and will probably take a few more), and I'll probably use YYYY-MM-DD for it even if just out of absentmindedness. Just wanna give you a heads-up that it isn't an attempt at edit-warring or whatever. In regard to numerals versus spelt out, I think you might be misreading that policy, unless I'm misunderstanding you. The Metacritic/Any Decent Music scores and the number of reviews would actually be non-comparable as they're measurements of different things. Or at least that's what my understanding is ~2026-32492-01 ↗ (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::that's absolutely fine, i'm not asking you to change the way you do things! i actually think those numbers would be considered comparable as the number of reviews directly impact the scores; different measurements, yes, though still related values. but i could be misunderstanding... i'm not completely sure, haha. either way, those numbers so close together would still work better either all spelled out or all in figures, i feel like. Sadslug (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Honeybee background

I personally feel that even more of the background section of Honeybee (song) ↗ could be removed. Articles for You Seem Pretty Sad for a Girl So in Love songs are starting to be created and they all have the same copied-and-pasted background from the album article. It just feels kind of pointless to me, like padding to make the individual articles seem more worthwhile ~2026-32492-01 ↗ (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

:oh, yeah, i agree, i had just removed the info that i thought was most obviously not related. i got rid of the hidden note because i could see an argument for including most of the rest, but you're ofc welcome to add it back or even rework the section yourself if you think it can be improved further. Sadslug (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2026 (UTC)