Talk:Paradise PD

MOS:AMP

User:CartoonnewsCP asserts that the creators should be listed in the Infobox using an ampersand.[1] Despite the fact that Template:Infobox television and MOS:TV say no such thing. This also goes against MOS:AMP which strongly discourages the use of ampersands in most cases.

I believe CartoonnewsCP is misinterpreting the guidelines by claiming that Wikipedia must credit creators exactly as they are credited onscreen, but I must wait until another discussion is resolved so I can only comment here and hope that other editors will correct and revert this change[2] (or maybe actually make clear where the guidelines say what User:CartoonnewsCP claims they say). -- 109.76.211.174 (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

User:YoungForever stated in their edit summary for The Great North that "Per MOS:TV, we go by according to credits. They are credited using "&"." see here. I am simply following them because their knowledge of Wikipedia TV policy is superior to mine. CartoonnewsCP (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI, there is a general consensus on WP:TV that on-screen credits override secondary sources or your in case WP:OR as they are not even credited that way. Also, you are absolutely incorrect about MOS:AMP. MOS:AMP states: But retain an ampersand when it is a legitimate part of the style of a proper noun, such as in Up & Down or AT&T. Elsewhere, ampersands may be used with consistency and discretion where space is extremely limited (e.g. tables and infoboxes.) Names are proper nouns. You clearly seem to just don't like ampersands. Your personal preference is duly noted. — YoungForever^(talk) 06:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

CartoonnewsCP, that's a start, you've finally pointed to a specific edit summary where YoungForever said "Per MOS:TV, we go by according to credits. They are credited using "&"." and made it clear that you are following the lead of YoungForever so I will address my question to YoungForever instead.

YoungForever MOS:TV says "The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits" it says ordered it does not say the specific WGA formatting using an ampersand & should be use or is required. If the guidelines are lagging behind the informal general consensus then please do post a link to discussions showing this new consensus. As you are familiar with Project Television it should be easy for you to find and show such discussions.

Setting aside for a moment what television articles have actually been doing for years, and what MOS:TV currently says, and pretend for a moment I agree with your formatting choices then you please update MOS:TV accordingly. Make it unambiguously clear that it means formatting exactly as it was onscreen including either "and" or "&" as shown. At the very least update Template:Infobox television to make it clear that we should follow WGA credits as you suggest. If this was actually clear it would be better for everyone and it would not be necessary for CartoonnewsCP to add big warning comment blocks.[3]

I'm not entirely against ampersands, MOS:AMP says "retain an ampersand when it is a legitimate part of the style of a proper noun" and I understand using it in cases like titles (Pride & Prejudice, Law & Order, etc) or well known double acts like Laverne & Shirley. I do not see any need or benefit to using it in creators field of Infoboxes, as you say the MOS:AMP guidelines point out that they "may be used" it does not say they they must be. What I don't like is people asserting that things must be done a certain way, while they are unable to point to the guidelines to backup their strongly worded assertions. Template:Infobox television does not say anything about including "either "and" or "&" and Template:Infobox film recommends against including exact credits "Don't add additional text (such as "with" or "featuring") or punctuation to the list." and although that is for the starring cast list specifically.

To summarize: if the MOS:TV guidelines lag behind the general consensus that is unfortunate, so if YoungForever (or CartoonnewsCP) can please point to the Project Television discussions that indicate this extra formatting of the names of creators in the Infobox is in keeping with the current general consensus that would be great. -- 109.76.211.174 (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

This just looks bad[4] to have the names Waco O'Guin & Roger
Black split across lines. If you are right about consensus couldn't the formatting be less ugly for example: {{nowrap|[[Waco O'Guin]] & [[Roger Black (actor)|Roger Black]]}} keeping both creators on the same line??? -- 109.76.211.174 (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

As I stated before, we do not go by personal preference. We always go by according to on-screen credits. The fact that on-screen credits (primary source) and WGA (secondary source) both are credited the same way override your personal preference. You are clearly inserting personal preference here. Waco O'Guin & Roger Black is a writing team not two separate writer and "&" is part of the writing team name. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

You're making up new rules that didn't exist before, just admit it. If there really is a consensus to do it the way things you insist, then it should be easy for you to update the Project Television guidelines to make it clear that it is not only the order but also the onscreen punctuation (be it & or + or "and" should be matched exactly). -- 109.76.128.149 (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Baseless accusations. Do you have any reliable sources to back up your personal preferences? Absolutely not because personal preferences do not override reliable sources. As I stated, there is a primary source and a secondary source that back up how they are credited. You are beating a dead horse here. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

You claim that "there is a general consensus on WP:TV" so show it already. You pointed to MOS:TV it does not say what you claim it says. I already pointed out that MOS:TV says "The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits" and I emphasized ordered and there is nothing there about the requirement to format it using "+" or "&" or "and" per the oncscreen credits, instead of simply listing the names using a list template such as {{Plainlist}} as {{Infobox television}} recommends. Based on the say so of YoungForever, user CartoonnewsCP is going around changing the formatting of Infoboxes that have been that for years and years,[5] claiming MOS:TV says it should be done that way, when it does not.

Even though MOS:TV does not say this clearly, how hard is it to point to even one of the discussions to show consensus you say exists? -- 109.79.170.28 (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is a television series article that I never even touched, but follows on-screen credits Cousins for Life. And here are thre more Gabby Duran & the Unsittables, Coop & Cami Ask the World, and Lab Rats: Elite Force. These articles are frequented by veteran editors who always edit television series articles. — YoungForever^(talk) 05:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I took this to Project Television. User:YoungForever does not seem to understand what I am asking, and instead of clarifying what part of the MOS:TV guidelines support his point, or pointing to an old discussion from the Project Television archives, he is instead pointing to low quality articles that have not got past Start class. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but high profile Good articles like Game of Thrones do not format their creators David Benioff & D. B. Weiss with an ampersand as you might expect if editors were serious about including the ampersand in the Infobox for creative teams. Anyway this will be my last comment here, as I have already started a discussion "As credited onscreen" at Project Television. -- 109.78.202.222 (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Why characters have their "counterparts" based on look alike, when I can't add their more significant similarities of their behavior? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.206.47.76 (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)