Talk:The Penguin (TV series)

Title

Per this tweet from DC, The Penguin appears to be the working title, which may not be the same as the final title. Should we move this draft back? InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

It shouldn't need to be moved back, as per the Black Panther: Wakanda Forever article, we knew in 2019 that the original title Black Panther II was a working title but it was kept as the page title until the official one was announced. It could be used as the series' title or it may change, but for now, it is suitable to be used. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between production working titles that are definitely not the title of the project, in which case we would not want to use it for the article's title, and development working titles where they have not confirmed what they want to call it yet but this is how it is being referred to. I felt this was the latter situation in which case it is fine as a temporary/common name, same case as Black Panther II as Trailblazer pointed out. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

And now we have two working titles, so I have no idea what to do with the lead. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The Boss working title is just what they use during filming to disguise what the project actually is. That one is used commonly and never refers to the actual title. The working title of The Penguin is just a temp title for what they actually call the series until they decide on a more official title. I was thinking the lede could use "tentative title" instead, as that is the same case, though all of the press releases have simply said The Penguin (wt). Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, the crew member who posted about the first day of filming did call it "The Penguin", so it's obviously be referred to as such by the creatives (just to point out that it wasn't WBD brass calling it that). But yes, we're featuring both definitions of "working title" here: one that is a tentative title, and another that's commonly created as a ruse/distractions for (on location) filming purposes. We could use "tentative title" in the lead like Trail suggested. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Illogical and inconsistent arguments

User:Trailblazer101 claims that "we" (in an attempt to position himself as a spokesperson for Wikipedia) don't include multiple directors in TV infoboxes. A quick look at Unscripted, Masters of the Air, Band of Brothers, The Pacific, Rich Man, Poor Man, Roots, The Forsyte Saga, The Bible, Against the Wind, The Cowra Breakout, Vietnam, The Dismissal, Bodyline, and countless other examples shows that this is clearly not true. These are limited series, so the number of directors will not get "needlessly exhaustive", as User:Favre1fan93 claims. Two directors is not exhaustive. That rule of thumb may make sense for an open-ended series with a continuously increasing number of directors, but not for a limited series or miniseries, which is the case here. In the case of a miniseries or limited series, all directors are generally listed. I have already provided numerous examples (and that is not an invitation for you to go change those templates to try to bolster your argument; any attempt to do so will be reported as part of this extensive edit war).

User:Favre1fan93's argument is "per documentation at Template:Infobox television, it notes only a SINGULAR director." This supposed argument is illogical and inconsistent. If that were the case, then only one country, one language, one company, and one producer could be listed. Moreover, shouting at me in all caps is argumentative and inappropriate. The template being used here clearly lists eight different executive producers, even though "executive_producer" is written in the singular form in the template code. It also lists five different companies, even though "company" is written in the singular form in the template code. How is it acceptable to list eight different executive producers and five different companies but listing two directors is somehow "needlessly exhaustive"?

I have already clearly stated these arguments, but they were ignored by the users in question. There was no discussion of my arguments at all. My edits were simply unceremoniously reverted. Instead, I got threatened with having my account blocked, even though I am the only one presenting clear logical and consistent arguments and providing examples for them. I am now presenting my arguments here so that everyone can seen them and see what is really going on. Nicholas0 (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you started a discussion rather than continuing to revert and take messages to user talkpages. For the good of the article, let's focus on the contents of the article rather than distracting ourselves with the actions of editors (though I will state that I believe Favre's capitalization of singular was not meant to be yelling, as you have said on my talk, but rather placing emphasis on a point). If you look at other TV limited series articles, Moon Knight, Daredevil: Born Again, She-Hulk: Attorney at Law (which only had 2 directors), The Old Man, Wednesday, The Mandalorian, and Peacemaker do not list the directors in the infoboxes even when there are two or even three or four. What If...? only lists two directors because the first one directed all episodes except one, which is noted in the infobox as such. Favre pointed to template documentation and general consensus among the WP:TV WikiProject for how these articles handle directors in infoboxes, so claims that we have not made points as you have said previously are incorrect and there has been consistency for not including two or more directors in infoboxes when there are an unequal amount of episodes they directed, given none of them are apparent as the main directors unlike the series creators, language, locations, companies, and cast, which all can be determined to have the main instances of individual creators and writers (the latter if there is only one consistent writer throughout), the primary language of the series (such as English or Spanish), locations of filming (the primary general locations), the main production companies credited, and the starring cast. This has also been the WP:STATUSQUO for this article for a few months now, and has been the consensus for these articles for quite some time. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that most of the examples you listed were pages that you were personally involved in editing, so that doesn't do anything to prove that this is a status quo but rather indicates that it is merely your personal choice. Even so, I have still provided more examples than you have. Where is it stated that this is the supposed status quo? You keep making that claim, yet I have provided far more evidence that this is not the case. Not once have you provided any sort of evidence that multiple directors cannot be listed. You keep talking about "general consensus" (even though you have not provided any evidence of any such consensus), yet I have provided numerous examples proving that this is clearly not the consensus. Based on numbers alone, the consensus is that multiple directors are listed. That has always been the WP:STATUSQUO, despite your recent edits on a small select group of articles. If your main concern were really to maintain status quo, you would allow things to be done as they have always been done instead of merely as you have done them in a few recent articles. Your explanations of User:Trailblazer101's arguments are not what that user stated. That user stated that because "director" is singular in the infobox, therefore only one can be listed. My argument is that this is illogical because then only one instance of multiple things could be listed. You have changed the argument, not proven that what that user claimed is correct. After all, the infobox code uses "cinematography", which by User:Trailblazer101's reasoning would mean that a person could never be listed because a person is a "cinematographer", not a "cinematography". I was proving that his argument of basing a decision on the way the infobox code is written was illogical and inconsistent, which you seem to have ignored. Nicholas0 (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

So I've listed far more examples showing that multiple directors are listed than you have to the contrary. That is clear evidence of how "we" do things on Wikipedia. You keep claiming "consensus", yet you have not linked to any such consensus, which indicates that there never was any such discussion and there was never any such consensus.

How many examples would it take for you to change your opinion? This is not a rhetorical question. I really want to know, because right now I'm providing far more evidence that multiple directors are listed than you have that they are not (you only listed two examples that you didn't edit yourself, and you even listed an example that is contrary to your own claim). So how many examples would it take? If you don't provide a number then it is clear that you are not interested in evidence and that you don't care about WP:STATUSQUO, no matter how many times you invoke it. Nicholas0 (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television‎, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television. ~~~~

Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of the infobox is to provide a quick summary of the article to readers. Given that we have episode tables that provide much clearer indication on directors and writers involved, that is why if there is more than one on a series, WP:TV consensus (based on how I've seen editors behave) is to exclude them in the infobox since the episode table is a better handle of this info. As I've stated, this has been the TV project's consensus for pretty much the entire time I've been editing, so it might be worth having the discussion over there if that consensus needs to actually be codified in the infobox's documentation, or that consensus needs to be changed (and also codified into the documentation). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

So your argument is that if something is already listed somewhere in else in the article then it should not be in the infobox. Let's see where that leads us:

1. According to your argument, the name of the series should not be in the infobox because it is already listed in the name of the article and in the lead paragraph.

2. According to your argument, the stars of the series should not be in the infobox because they are already listed in the cast list and likely in the lead paragraph as well. This point is of particular importance because it is of equal relevance to the matter of directors.

3. According to your argument, the country of the series should not be listed in the infobox because it is already listed in the lead paragraph and the categories.

4. According to your argument, the language of the series should not be listed in the infobox because it is already listed in the categories.

5. According to your argument, the years should not be listed in the infobox because they are already listed in the categories, the lead paragraph, and the episode list.

That is what you are arguing for with your argument. This is precisely what I mean when I say that these arguments are illogical and inconsistent.

Where was this supposed "consensus" reached? If it were really a rule, it would be written somewhere. The fact that you can't link to it indicates that there is no such rule. However, there is a guideline clearly stated about shouting that you have already broken. Nicholas0 (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

When there are multiple directors and writers on a TV series, we most definitely do not include them on the infobox. We only put them on the infobox, if there is only one director and/or one writer for the entire TV series. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

This may be getting out of scope for this discussion, but do we even need those parameters in the TV infobox? The main creative control on a TV show is usually the showrunner alongside the producers; maybe those should be the parameters we focus on, and we could remove the writer/director parameters. If a show has only one writer, that writer is typically the showrunner (as is the case here), so they would be covered. TV directors are generally either hired in with minimal creative control (i.e., Helen Shaver for this show, as best as I can tell) or are producers/executive producers (Craig Zobel); in the former case their contributions are less relevant to the infobox, and in the latter case, which is more common if there is only one director, they would still be covered. Basically, if we're only listing single writers and directors, we can probably include them in other ways. But that type of change needs to be discussed further elsewhere. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking of this, as well, though felt best to save that for another discussion. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The TV infobox is also used for TV movies, so we would definitely use the writer/director params for those. I personally agree that we don't need to use them for TV series even if there is a small number of writers/directors across the whole show, but I don't usually argue with them being added if it is only a few for each param because I know there is some precedent for that. I would support a new discussion asking for the template documentation to limit the params to TV movies. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I started a discussion about this at Template talk:Infobox television#Alternatives to writer and director parameters to separate it from the specifics of this show. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

You say that, yet the evidence shows that the majority of articles do in fact list them in the infobox. I have already listed a plethora of examples. I did not come here with any sort of opinion on the matter. I simply looked at what was already being done and imitated that style as per WP:STATUSQUO. That is the only fair way to do it, not to show up with a clear opinion already in mind and to make claims about what is done while ignoring all of the evidence to the contrary. Just tell me how many examples you need to change your mind, because right now there are more examples for the inclusion of directors than for their exclusion. I have no opinion either way. I am simply following the status quo according to the evidence available. So how many examples do you need to change your opinion? Nicholas0 (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:OSE which does not necessarily mean they are following established consensus. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

So, now that I've taken a nicely-sized sampling of the reviews,

is it WP:TOOSOON to begin assessing the critical response? BarntToust (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

We ourselves cannot assess the critical reception and determine a consensus of those reviews, as that would be WP:SYNTHESIS. We would need to wait to see what individual reviews determine the overall critical reception to be. I would also suggest reviewing MOS:TVRECEPTION. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

Think infobox is broken lol 67.243.110.245 (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)