User Talk: SnapSnap

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

{{Archives|
# August 2006 – October 2007 ↗
# November 2007 – July 2008 ↗
# August 2008 – October 2009 ↗
# January 2010 – December 2010 ↗
# January 2011 – December 2011 ↗
# March 2012 – December 2012 ↗
# January 2013 – December 2013 ↗
# January 2014 – December 2014 ↗
# January 2015 – December 2015 ↗
# January 2016 – December 2016 ↗
# January 2017 – December 2017 ↗
# January 2018 – December 2018 ↗
# January 2019 – December 2019 ↗
# January 2020 – December 2020 ↗
# January 2021 – December 2021 ↗
# January 2022 – December 2022 ↗
# January 2023 – December 2023 ↗
# January 2024 – November 2024 ↗}}

Words and numbers

Sorry if I didn't explain clearly enough, it's difficult to explain clearly in an edit summary.

There is a small there is a readability cost when switching context from words to numerals. The brain has to process the slight ambiguity of 21 which could be TWO ONE, or TWENTY ONE (or 123 ONE TWO THREE versus ONE HUNDRED and TWENTY THREE). Think about how often dumb text to speech software gets this sort of thing wrong, your brain is smart enough to correct for it but it does add a tiny extra step that reduces readability. Try reading text out loud, you might start noticing these and other speedbumps.

The guidelines MOS:NUMERAL ↗ says numbers "may be expressed either in numerals or in words" I was trying to also explain why in a large prose section (not an equation or a formula) that it is better to use the words not the numbers. I hope I have been able to explain it a bit better and more clearly now. -- 109.78.195.161 ↗ (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{Reply to|109.78.195.161}} Whatever one's brain can process is entirely subjective. Integers greater than nine are expressed in numerals all the time in plot summaries and it's never been an issue. If there were any major issues regarding the readability of numerals in large prose sections, I'm sure it would be covered by guidelines or policies. snapsnap (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Guidelines say things can be done one way or the other. They rarely explain why they should be done one way or the other, I'm not trying to have an opinion I'm trying to present facts about readability that aren't subjective at all, I wish I could link to documents that backup these factual principles of readability, but unfortunately anecdotal explanation is the best I can manage to remember. (I'm not a fan of reading documentation and style guides, but I've read a fair few over the years. I've also learned a little about speech therapy and writing dialogue that has to be spoken out loud. Unfortunately I'm sorely lacking in the academic first principles and facts to better explain all this half remembered minutiae). I'm disappointed my explanation wasn't good enough to convince you, I really do believe that in a section full of words it is better to keep consistently using words not numerals, I think the guidelines imply this even if they don't state it outright. The guidelines do emphasize that numbers should be used in tables and infoboxes MOS:NUMNOTES ↗ {{tq|"In tables and infoboxes, quantities are expressed in figures"}} and the Plot section is not a table or Infobox, it is a large prose section. The guidelines continue ... {{tq|"but numbers within a table's explanatory text and comments follow the general rule."}} which seems to indicate that even within a table were there is space to do so the words are preferable over the numerals.
:: I hope you will take a moment to read the text of the plot section out loud. I hope you will consider if the guidelines allow either way to be used then maybe the Plot section is one of those times where it is better to use the words. I wish I could find a past discussion or part of style guide that better explains what I'm asking. Anyhow I hope you'll take a moment to ponder it further. Either way thanks for your time. -- 109.78.195.161 ↗ (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{Reply to|109.78.195.161}} This is an issue that seems to extend beyond Wikipedia. Personally I've never had any readability issues, or experienced any sort of ambiguity, while reading numerals in plot summaries or other large prose sections. In fact, I believe numerals are preferable over words when referring to a person's age. But if you wish to restore the words in the Anora plot section, I won't edit-war with you over this. Not because I necessarily agree with your rationale, I just don't think that this is something worth edit-warring over. In the future, you should probably avoid using Wikipedia guidelines to justify an argument that isn't explicitly supported by said guideline. snapsnap (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Cigarettes After Sex X's India Tour 2025

Hi Snap,

I'm new to the wikipedia and added the details of the CAS Indian Tour Details but it was removed by you. Can you please tell me the reason, so I can learn and contribute to wikipedia in the right way in future. Shah941 (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{Reply to|Shah941}} Hi. We don't include tour details (dates, venues, etc.) in artist articles. Usually concert tours have their own article, in the case of tours that have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (per WP:CONCERT ↗). snapsnap (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Playing the Angel

Hi, I saw your message, the album recording dates were added by website allmusic.com , here you are.

Playing the Angel - Depeche Mode | Album | AllMusic ↗ 95.237.168.126 ↗ (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

American Playhouse -- "is" or "was"?

I'm curious as to why you reverted my edit on "American Playhouse," in which I changed the first sentence to the past tense. The series hasn't aired a new episode since 1993, and is clearly over. Jhlechner (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

:{{Reply to|Jhlechner}} Per MOS:TVNOW ↗ (which I mentioned in my edit summary), references to TV shows are always in the present tense on Wikipedia, because the show still exists even if it's no longer airing new episodes. The only exception to this rule are lost television shows ↗. snapsnap (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Question: Which dash to use?

Hey @SnapSnap! I've noticed some of your edits to the pages I've made changes to, and to start, I really appreciate it! Thank you for having a great eye for detail and helping to clean things up! I've noticed that you (and others) are replacing en dashes with em dashes between page ranges in citations, but when I read MOS:RANGE ↗ it seemed to indicate that en dashes are preferred. But everyone keeps changing them. I just want to figure out what's right, so I don't cause work for other people. I feel like I must be missing something. Can you help? Thank you! :) 87Fan (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

:{{Reply to|87Fan}} Hi! Thank you for the kind words, and thank you for your work expanding Depeche Mode album articles. If you're referring to this edit ↗, I actually replaced a hyphen (-) with an en dash (–); an em dash (—) is actually wider than an en dash. You're correct, en dashes are the correct punctuation mark to use for ranges of numbers and dates, so if anyone is using em dashes for ranges, they're wrong. snapsnap (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
::Oh wow, there are 3 types!? I thought hyphens ''were '' en dashes. That's what I was missing. Thank you! I appreciate you! 87Fan (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
:::{{Reply to|87Fan}} You're welcome! Glad I could help. snapsnap (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Seeking support for standardizing the use of posters instead of title cards for miniseries articles

I’m reaching out to get your thoughts on a proposal I’ve made regarding the visual standards for miniseries and limited series articles.
Currently, MOS:TVIMAGE ↗ allows for either a title card or a promotional poster, but common practice has leaned toward title cards by default. This has led to many miniseries articles only using title cards instead of posters.

I am proposing we standardize the use of promotional posters for miniseries articles. The logic is two-fold:
# Unlike ongoing series, miniseries have no "Season" articles to house their posters. The poster is the only asset that identifies the cast, setting, and genre at a glance—context a text-based title card lacks.
# By standardizing this for miniseries, we remove the need for future "Title Card vs. Poster" discussions like this one ↗.

I’m trying to build consensus to make the guidelines more definitive so editors don't have to keep re-litigating this for other miniseries. If you're interested in supporting this cause, voice out your opinions here ↗. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)