Talk:The Penguin (TV series)

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American television task force. Comics: DC Comics / Batman Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Related work groups: /  This article is supported by DC Comics work group. This article is supported by Batman work group. United States: Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

From Production List RebelYasha (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

FYI @RebelYasha, be careful using Production List, as they rarely go back to update the postings to say if something ended up happening or not. Good for a frame of reference, but if production postponed or cancelled, you'd never know it. -2pou (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will keep that in mind. Just thought it was worth noting considering sources like these are usually as close to legitimate as possible and there's nothing to really distrust about them. I'll update if anything actually changes though RebelYasha (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the source because it was Production List for reasons similar to what 2pou noted. It's likely something to keep in the back of our minds to look out for more confirmation, but we shouldn't put it in the draft. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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,

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)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply

]