User talk:Jgstokes/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your unnecessary deletion of info on Impeachment Trial page[edit]

That was a silly and to my mind a petulant deletion that serves no purpose but to advance your agenda, it seems. The information is relevant, the point the editor made in including it was well taken, and your assertion excusing your deletion requires others to accept your POV. Because the page has been locked, it's not in my power to revert your edit but it is likely to be reverted by others if you don't undo it yourself. If that's really a hill you want to die on, excluding info about the votes of Independents in the Senate, you should first bring the subject up on the Talk page and try to get consensus.72.86.138.65 (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for stopping by to express your opinion on this matter. For the record, I never make any edits out of a desire on my part, petulant or otherwise, to advance my own agenda. And when it comes to any article I edit here, including and especially articles about United States politics, I am one known for checking my own opinions at the door and doing whatever I can to help ensure each article I edit is always compliant with Wikipedia policies. One doesn't generally become a respected editor on Wikipedia after 12.5 years if one is too driven by personal motivations, opinions, or agendas, and my record speaks for itself. And if I failed to check any selfish motivations, including personal agendas, at the door, I would not have had more than a dozen years of contributions, nor would I have been considered an earnest contributor. You are, of course, free to have your own perception and opinion of what I do and how I do it in any respect here, but the fact that my edit in question has not yet been reverted by anyone seems a pretty good indicator that your opinion of that edit is not heljd by the majority in this case. Also, while I appreciate you expressing your concern here, I would have a much easier time seeing merit in your feedback if it wasn't coming from an anonymous IP address. Whenever anyone without a user name and a limited editing history here comes to me with such concerns, it is hard to take them seriously, since I don't know from whom they are coming. Your opinion on this and all such matters here on Wikipedia would likely be seen as more meritorious if you took the time to register for an account. Whether or not you may choose to do so is your call entirely. In the meantime, having shared this response, I don't plan on losing any sleep over this matter. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't care less whether or not you take my seriously because (gasp) I have not registered a WP account. Your re-edit of your original edit is no better, and appears to strengthen the inference that you are intent on inserting your bias. You numbered the Independents as if they were Democrats, which is false as a factual matter. Your lengthy sneering is noted.72.86.139.74 (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indebted (TV series)[edit]

I put the table back per the episodes cited on the reference at http://www.thefutoncritic.com/showatch/indebted/listings/. 2001:470:1F2D:C:0:0:0:6 (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know these changes are now verified by a reliable source, per the relevant policies. Any previous objections I expressed on this matter are now resolved. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 08:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, hello[edit]

I get the impression I am annoying you and that is not my intent so I wanted to reach out and check in with you. I have been trying to improve the quality of a lot of church-related posts and add more references and higher quality references when possible.

I don't have anything against the gapages.com links, but when a primary sources is available I would prefer to use that. Gapages.com is a nice resource, but he is pulling his material from Ensign articles and such. I would prefer to use primary sources directly (the Ensign article for example) instead of his site. Also, his site is getting to be more out of date. The Ballard page has not been updated since 2007.

Also, I support any changes that are correct and you won't hurt my feelings when I get something wrong. That's the beauty of wikipedia. If I can help you in any way just let me know. I will follow your lead on labeling the external links. I was trying to be consistent (using the title you had used on others) but I see now that you would prefer to just use headings on the target page. Feel free to make any other suggestions in my direction. I think we're on the same team here.

Thank you for all your efforts--it makes Wikipedia a better place!

-- Fullrabb (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Fullrabb[reply]

I apologize if I implied you were annoying me. That was not my intent. I am grateful for your good-faith efforts. That aaid, you may not be aware of some of what editors on articles about the Church have been up against. Within the last couple of years, there has been an increased movement by several Wikipedia admins (some of whom appear to have a clear bias or prejudice against the Church) to propose wide-sweeping mass deletions of articles about Church-related subjects when those articles lack sufficient sourcing that is independent of the Church. This means that if the only sources listed for an article about, say, a GA Seventy, are those published in the Church News and on the official Church website, those articles could be subject to deletion if efforts are not made to find and list sources with no direct ties to those article subjects.
So Grampa Bill's website is one that is run by a lay member of the Church, with no direct connection to the leaders about whom he has featured biographies on his website. This particular Wikipedia scenario (relevant articles about Church leaders and topics being deleted due to lack of independent sourcing) has been widespread. So right now, the consensus as it is is to retain and preserve those independent sources in such articles to prevent their deletion.
It is a thorny problem that I've been trying to navigate for a long time in my work on Wikipedia. And if you were to go through the archives of my talk page from past years, you'd see pretty quickly that the mass deletion of articles (and my responses in the deletion discussions for them) has been something for which I have both been criticized on the one end and offered feedback on the other. If I had my personal preference, each article about Church-related topics would include extensive sourcing from Church websites, but the parameters to do that, and community acceptance of such actions, seems to be non-existent and a violation of current policies. So unfortunately, we need to follow those policies as they are, not as we might personally prefer them to be.
At timees, this multi-faceted problem has made editing here on Wikipedia impossible for me, which has led me to step away for several weeks at a time in the past. I haven't successfully found a way around these issues in over 3 years of consistent efforts and attempts to do so. So anything you've done which I have reverted is solely due to that. Above and beyon that, however, the sources and links that are included in the article in any capacity do need to utilize proper titles, which is per Wikipedia policy as well. For the Church leaders, therefore, this means that, if an article comes from the Ensign, it needs to be credited as being from the Ensign, and if a leader biography comes from the General Authorities and General Officers section of the Leader Biographies page, that's how it needs to be credited.
The final thing I would note is that I don't know how long you may have been editing here, so I cannot speak in terms of the experiences you may or may not have had doing so, but in the dozen or so years within which I have edited Wikipedia, I have learned (however reluctantly) to navigate the policies as they are, not as I'd like them to be, while doing what I can to work towards changing them for the better. And maybe by mentioning here the nuances related to articles about Church leaders and topics, I can get one more person (you) on board to help navigate around these issues and to assist in getting these policies as they now stand (many of which do not make sense to me personally) changed. Thanks for reaching out about this. I appreciate the chance to address your concerns. Please keep up the great work, and do feel free to let me know if you have any questions on what I have laid out here. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoey's Extraordinary Playlist[edit]

Don't undo credit additions when a episode has aired or is airing. 2001:470:1F2D:C:0:0:0:6 (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by to leave this comment, but I'd be curious to know which Wikipedia policies defend your argument here. The information remains unsourced, which violates policy. If it were to be sourced, it would have to be sourced reliably, or that violates another policy. And one individual editor claiming that something is or is not in the credits of an episode of a show that has only aired one time on network TV is not nearly a sound enough argument. If and when you have a reliable source for the information, then it can be included. Until that time, I'd suggest you spend more time becoming acquainted with Wikipedia guidelines, and less time calling out editors like me for actually following those policies. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 26[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 Utah gubernatorial election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Dougall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 3[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020–21 United States network television schedule, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deadline (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Fixed) Inconsistency with numbering on the LDS temple page[edit]

Hello Jgstokes,

After the eight new temples were announced today (5 April 2020), I went to check out the Wikipedia page and I noticed that there was some inconsistent numbering. I isolated the problem: there had been two templates, one which had a diacritical mark: 

LDS Temple/Cobán Guatemala

and one that did not: 

LDS Temple/Coban Guatemala

The one that was in use was the latter, which had the wrong number. I switched the template in use to the former. The only thing left would be to delete the latter (unused w/o a diacritical mark) template, which I cannot do. As a relative noob of Wikipedia, do you have the ability to do this as the page creator? --Darrenrs (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darrenrs, thanks for letting me know about this. If I had been able to devote more time to troubleshooting that problem, I might have come to the same conclusion a while ago that you came to today. Unfortunately, I am also somewhat of a novice when it comes to template creation and adjustments, so I wouldn't know where to begin as far as deleting the invalid template. But I can put out a request for assistance with this through this talk page, so I'll keep this topic open for now. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Darrenrs and Jgstokes:

See Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:LDS_Temple/Coban_Guatemala_Temple, the seemingly unused template is still used in some places. Can you please correct this? --Gryllida (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can fix this yourself, no need for a deletion. Make sure the one with a diacritical mark is correct then make the other one, without the diacritical mark, a redirect to the first. The appropriate redirect template appears to be {{R to diacritic}}. A bot will eventually get around to fixing any double redirects or you can resolve these yourself. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 02:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missions of the Church[edit]

There is a mission in Illinois that I didn’t see appear on the site. It is called Nauvoo Historic Sites. It appears to be the only mission without the name “mission” after it. It replaced the Illinois Nauvoo Mission. Like the Illinois Nauvoo Mission, it is generally just sisters who serve there, and part of their mission will be somewhere else in the states. The Central Eurasian Mission is now the Bulgaria/Central Eurasian Mission. Hope I helped! Electric Thunder87 (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Electric Thunder87, and thanks for stopping by to share that information here. Given the fact that I extensively follow the official websites of the Church and several blogs about developments in the Church, I have no doubt that the information you reported in your comment here is correct. At the same time, Wikipedia has somewhat strict policies that direct that all such information needs to be appropriately sourced. I am assuming that you are basing your report on an official source. If that is the case, and the source is one that is universally accessible, if you cite that source when noting the appropriate change on the relevant page, I'll have no objection whatsoever to the inclusion of the information. My one and only qualm has arisen in relation to this question when the information was given without a source verifying its' validity. If that particular problem is fixed, there is no problem whatsoever in terms of including the information, and any previous objections I may have raised on the matter would then be moot. Thanks for letting me know about this, and feel free to message me here again if you have any further questions or concerns about my position on the issue in question. Best wishes to you. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Nine Nine reversion[edit]

reversion

I really don't agree, dude. "Includes" implies a tense of linear time, not a quantity of episodes. That's how language works, its not a matter of personal opinion. By your logic, it would make sense to say, "the cast of Doctor Who includes William Hartnell as the lead character", despite being dead 45 years and having been superseded by 12 other actors in the same role. Your reversion strongly implies Peretti is a current cast member who can be expected to appear in future, as yet untransmitted episodes, neither of which is true.

If you want to explain that Peretti appears in the majority of episodes to date, that is a perfectly valid intention, but you *must* use appropriate and unambiguous language, such as, "Peretti was a major cast character and appears in the majority of transmitted episodes"; note the different tenses of "was" and "appears" - you edit appears to be incorrectly conflating the two different tenses needed to describe this fact, where the two different tenses are crucial to understanding the timeline of both the show and its production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazigster (talk • contribs) 01:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying very hard to assume good faith on your part here, per Wikipedia policy. But as I understand the relevant Wikipedia policies, the principles of consensus in such matters outweigh grammatical matters. And the Doctor Who example you cited would only be valid if William Hartnell hadvi been Doctor Who for a majority of that show's aired episodes. Althougbh I was not privy to the discussions that led to the Brooklyn Nine-Nine character descriptions, those descriptions have remained intact as they were until you unilaterally changed the description on Gina Linetti. And BTW, if you bothered to familiarize yourself with my editing history and experience, you'd know that I am the son of a proofreader who was raised on proper grammar, aside from which I had two years of editing experience with my high school newspaper before I ever started editing Wikipedia, and I am a published blog author, so lecturing me about grammatical consistency may be out-of-line. But go ahead and revert my edit, or if you prefer, scan the talk page for the show and the associated consensuses, and then feel free to come back and tell me how out-of-line my edit was. Either way, the fact that no one else has reverted my edit between when you left your message on my talk page (which you neglected to sign, BTW) and now seems indicative that you're the only one who seems to think my revert of your unilateral changes was out of line. Either way, I won't lose sleep regarding this matter. And by the way, if you want to talk correct grammar, according to Merriam-Webster, your use of reversion to describe my actions in this case is in correct. "Revert" is the grammatically correct term in referenc3e to my actions in this case. Oh, how I love when people lecture me about grammar when they themselves use it so proficiently! Wishing you continued success in your Wikipedia efforts. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)--Jgstokes (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:The Voice (American season 19) has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:The Voice (American season 19). Thanks! An@ss_koko(speak up) 05:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for informing me about that here. Follow-up question: Did you actually review my recent edits to the article in question? Because based on new information that has come to light, I added 2 or 3 new sources to the article today before requesting the new review, along with an appropriate request on the talk page for all who work on the parent project for the article type to help contribute to the draft article. So if you did see those changes I made, I'm more than slightly confused about the reasoning behind your comment. If active attempts are being made to appropriately improve the article, unless there's something I'm misunderstanding about the process whereby an article goes from the draftspace to the mainspace, I'm at a loss to try and figure out the reasoning for the wording of your comment. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.Accusing others of racism is unacceptable behaviour PainProf (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for taking time to reach out to me on this, and my apologies for my delayed response on this matter. I assume that you are talking about my recent comments added on the AfD discussion for Ulisses Soares. For the record, I never actually called anyone anything. If you go back to the discussion, my exact comment included the following: "[A]n argument can be made that targeting the article of an apostle from an ethnic minority among top leadership could, by Wikipedia's definition, be considered to be action taken on the basis of of racist motivations, which shows clear bias on the part of the nominator." I never directly called anyone a racist. I should perhaps have said "the possible basis of racial bias" rather than "the basis of racial motivations." On the day I made the comment in question, I happened to be in a position to find out about the deletion discussion of the article in question outside of Wikipedia.
And if you were to examine my editing history more fully, you'd likely be able to verify that I have participated in literally dozens of these deletion discussions about leaders of the LDS Church. Within the course of those discussions, I have been frustrated when nothing I have done or said has seemed to make a difference in the outcome. And there has been a history in these deletion discussions of nominators being unwilling to pause the discussion while the concerns that led to the article being nominated are adequately addressed.
Unfortunately, as a result of that history of my participation in those ongoing discussions, it's been difficult for me to see good faith in such nominations, and so my subsequent participation in discussions of that kind in the past have left me frustrated. I should not have let those soured memories of these kinds of experiences poison my words in that discussion in question, and the fact that I did is something for which I must regretfully take full responsibility. If I had that to do over again, I'd be sure to try and keep the dialogue civil. Your timely and appropriate warning here is noted, and I will do my best to never let my own personal bad experiences from past discussions poison my ability to aim for good faith participation in any future discussions of this sort. Thanks, and my apologies again. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: August 2020 (August 3)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nathan2055 was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints instead.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Jgstokes! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: August 2020 (August 3)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nathan2055 was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Area (LDS Church) instead.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Jgstokes! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Voice (American season 19) (August 14)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 2pou was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
All references are essentially WP:PRIMARY references (either directly or spun via WP:CHURNALISM). They also do not meet the significant coverage aspect of WP:GNG. These are either passing mentions or casting announcements, and they are not discussing the show in depth. I think the soonest might be an actual announcement of the premiere date, or some reports really diving into how the show is adapting to the COVID situation.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
2pou (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation[edit]

Hey...Just wanted to Thank U for your insight on the matter of the "Notes" in the 2020-21 TV schedule. I too have stated my views on the matter and would love your further opinion so that we can successfully conclude that discussion. There is also another discussion underway at the 2019-20 TV schedule that has a direct impact on the 2020 schedule and so might interest you. Feel free to state your views on the matter. Cheers!! TheRedDomitor (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help me![edit]

Please help me with... On List of area seventies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have attempted numerous times to fix errors with a couple of the tables. For the last two Quorums, rather than listing the number of their Quorum (Eleventh and Twelfth, respectively), by the name of each of those Quorum members is the phrase "Unk". I have made numerous :attempts to resolve this, but am not aware of anything amiss anywhere else in either of the two tables that would be causing this problem. Having done all I can on my end about this, I think it would be wise to get some outside help on the matter. If any additional context on the problem is needed, I'm happy to provide it here or on the talk page of the article mentioned. Thanks for taking time to offer any possible assistance with this. It's greatly appreciated. Jgstokes (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Why is that so complex? Anyway, it looks like nobody defined anything past the 10th entry in template:LDS area seventy. So, you get what looks to be the default message for errors: "unk". If it were me, I'd get rid of the complex templates entirely. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NinjaRobotPirate, thanks for weighing in on this issue. It makes sense that, when the template in question was set up, the parameters were not set for anything above 10. At the time the article was created (in July 2008), none of us who worked on it originally had any notion that there would ever be more than ten Quorums of the Seventy, so that wouldn't have been planned accordingly. I like your idea of moving away from the complex templates, which might make the page and the lists on it much easier to maintain. I will publish a request for comment on the article's talk page about how we might want to change the page to fix this issue going forward. Thanks for helping me figure out the problem. I appreciate it. --Jgstokes (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SNL[edit]

Hi, Jgstokes. Generally I'm OK with this edit, but some parts of it are not sourced in any particular article and would require an editor to syntheize a conclusion: "which makes this season one of the few seasons in SNL history not to have a Thanksgiving show, likely due to the six-week season start"; "his [Jason Bateman] second time hosting"; Kristen Wiig "is the seventh former cast member after Bill Murray (season 7) to host the Christmas show" (here certain hosts and seasons are linked, but what is synthesized is the determination that there were no former cast members hosting in the other 39 seasons). Those statements should be removed or cited with a source external to Wikipedia. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out to me here about this. As I've mentioned previously, I have almost 15 years of general editing experience here on Wikipedia, but I'm a relatively new contributor to articles about SNL. As such, I'm still learning the ropes in terms of the way things are typically done for that series of articles. During the period of time since I started editing articles related to the show, I've been particularly impressed by the ways you have contributed to those articles, for which I'd like to thank you. I also want to let you know that I definitely see your explanation above as satisfactory and reasonable. As I mentioned in my edit summary when reverting your change, I seem to recall some of the information that I attempted to restore had been sourced in other articles on Wikipedia. But I didn't have time at that point to retrieve the information and accompanying sources. Based on the amount of time I did have in that case, I felt that a full revert would be better for the time being. Perhaps that was not the correct call in this particular case. If I had it to do over again, I'd probably handle that matter differently. Now that we've both indicated where we were coming from on this issue, if there is a better or more effective way to reconcile both of our intentions with the material in question, I'd welcome your thoughts on the best way to do that. I'd be glad to defer to your expertise on this matter. Thanks. --Jgstokes ([r[User talk:Jgstokes#top|talk]]) 09:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words and gracious response. I suggest that we simply removed the phrases that I have noted above and leave everything else intact. If you have no objections I'll do that. Sundayclose (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that would be best, again, I'm inclined to defer to your expertise. The one follow-up question I'd have for you, though, relates to something I believe I remember seeing in other articles about the show. Adam Sandler and Eddie Murphy both hosted recently for the first time in several decades. If I'm recalling correctly, the pages noting their most recent hosting stints link back to the relevant seasons when they last hosted or made an appearance. And I believe that the most recent episode hosted by each of them also cited some reliable sources verifying the unique circumstances in those cases. Bearing in mind that some of the information removed was uncited trivia for which there may not be verification in reliable sources, would it be a good idea to look into some of the SNL articles from previous years to verify those items of information? I know that there's a thin line between mentioning good information that has merit and relevance on the one hand and avoiding information overload or an unnecessary amount of trivia on the other. Is there a better way to balance the two sides in this case, or would it be better to just leave all of that information out? I don't know that I have strong feelings about trying to find a way to keep some of the information that can be verified, but it did occur to me to wonder whether mentioning any of it would be beneficial for those who are reading the article. Do you have any thoughts on that, or is removing all of that content altogether still the best option in this case? Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a clear dividing line between relevant information and unnecessary trivia. To some extent that's a matter of opinion. I don't think you should hesitate to be WP:BOLD and add or restore something that you think is relevant. If someone objects, then it can be discussed per WP:BRD. I would never discourage you from looking at previous seasons to find verification for something in a later season if you want to spend the time doing so. My personal opinion is that it's OK to link to a previous season as verification for something in a later season; in such a case a citation may not be necessary if it's clear from the link. For example, if John Doe hosts this season and it's noted that he also hosted in Season X, and that's noted with a link to Season X, that's sufficient. But if there is a claim that John Doe hosted for the first time in 10 years, in my opinion it would not be sufficient to simply link the season from 10 years ago because that leaves out the possibility that he hosted in the intervening seasons. In such a case I think it would be best to find a source external to Wikipedia that confirms John Doe hosted for the first time in 10 years. I don't know if I'm making myself clear; it can be a little complicated. So don't hesitate to ask for clarification or follow up with more questions. I appreciate your trust in my "expertise" about SNL, but I really can't claim any unusual expertise for SNL; I just like for things to be clearly sourced and I can usually identify something that needs a source or discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is well-taken, Sundayclose. I agree that trivia for trivia's sake, especially in cases where it's not clear where the information is coming from, is not a good idea. I may see what I can do to strike that balance as time and circumstances allow in the future. I have other priorities, on and off Wikipedia, that may take precedence by comparison to SNL articles, but I can certainly work on that if/when I can. In the meantime, based on what we've discussed here, I have no problem with the changes yoweu've made to my revert of your original edit. Thanks for dialoguing with me here about this matter. Keep up the great work. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jgstokes/Archive_13&oldid=1004322436"