Wikipedia

Talk:Family Guy/Archive 11

< Talk:Family Guy
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Curly Turkey in topic Adult animation
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

post-RfC cleanup: what wording, if any, should the article go with?

Latest comment: 7 years ago67 comments9 people in discussion

Per the RfC above, the "adult" wording has proved to be problematic, and I've removed it. What alternative, if any, would be appropriate? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Pinging those who took part in the discussion: @Masem, WhatamIdoing, Beyond My Ken, Montanabw, Kaldari, and BU Rob13: @JaykeBird, Adamfinmo, QEDK, Nihlus Kryik, SMcCandlish, and Keira1996: @Damotclese, Edgarde, A D Monroe III, Cpaaoi, and PamD: Note: I haven't pinged AussieLegend, as they've instructed me not to. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Not relevant to the discussion
I'm going to have to agree with AussieLegend, it is inappropriate to "ping" peolpe just because they responded to the RFC bot. Please don't do that, Curly. Damotclese (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
And I disagree. It's routine to ping RfC respondents when a post-RfC decision has to be made to get beyond what was in the RfC's closure. People are more apt to complain about being left out than included. And pinging everyone except leaving out AussieLegend would open the ping'er to accusations of selective canvassing. Frankly, it's not any editor's responsibility to try to remember that AussieLegend in particular doesn't want pings about some particular topic or from some particular editor. None of us GaF, and we are not here to play personality games. Far more time has been wasted on argument about AL's personal preferences and their personality conflict with another editor that would have been spent just responding to question posted.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Leaving out someone with whom you've disagreed is particularly likely to draw complaints. Even if AussieLegend didn't mind, someone else might think it was an intentional slight or an effort to stack the deck. I think Curly made the right choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I fail to understand your conclusion given your argument. I specifically asked Curly Turkey not to ping me EVERY time he replied, not to never ping me. He was pinging me every time he posted in order to get me to post a response to something that I had provided a response for and it was getting annoying. His failure to notify me of this discussion was inappropriate at best. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
This is so incredibly dishonest—I pinged you because you refused to respond to the issues raised. You have yet to give a rationale as to what issue you have with explicitly stating the demographics elsewhere in the lead. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes indeed it is incredibly dishonest, OF YOU. You pinged me several times to elicit a response from me even though you already had my response. Eventually I had to post saying I've made my position on the RfC question quite clear[1] and when that didn't satisfy you, You have my answer. I'm sorry that you don't like it but it is what it is what it is and please stop pinging me EVERY time you reply..[2] Unfortunately for you, the page history is available to everyone. Now, can we please move on? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
It might be best if at least one of you "moved on" to a different article. This acrimony is reaching the point at which I suspect that an WP:IBAN could be requested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I'd prefer the demographics were made clear, explicit, and unambiguous elsewhere in the lead (with the precondition of it being included with proper sources in the body first). Something like "The show targets is viewed primarily by an audience of adults and teenagers" or whatever—as teenagers make up a significant portion of the target audience, we should avoid wordings that could suggest the target audience is adults (thus "for adults" and "adult-oriented" are misleading and unhelpful). It has not been made clear why it would be appropriate or desirable to include an inevitably awkward and potentially ambiguous or misleading variation in the lead sentence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Per the suggestion made by the RfC closer I believe "animated sitcom for adults" is appropriate. Alternatively, "adult-oriented animated sitcom" as partially suggested by Cpaaoi is appropriate. Appropriate wikilinks should be included. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with the above "animated sitcom for adults". Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree to either/both the following: 1) clarifying the target audience as adults, and 2) explicitly stating it's an "animated sitcom for adults", though in my opinion, the latter option is pretty crude. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 11:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Again, what do the sources say? I wouldn't bother to object to "for/toward adults", or adding "and teens", in any form, but it would be far better to use a phrase that's actually per sources (at least one) rather than crafting our own, which borders on SYNTH. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • As I indicated below, there was a source in the article but it's not really any help in that regard.[3] --AussieLegend (✉) 17:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Use "animated sitcom for adults". The idea that it's intended for teens is original research based on the minimum age classification it was given in ratings systems, which does not translate to authorial or studio intent.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
    • What "original research"? WhatamIdoing provided a New York Times article as a source giving the size of the show's teenage audience (over 20% are under 18), and we haven't seen a source giving "authorial or studio intent"—the source provided for "adult" opens by calling Rocky and Bullwinkle. The article also lists The Spectacular Spider-Man, which ran on Kids' WB. Demonstrating why we have to be careful about cherrypicking sources that say what we want—if such a source is appropriate here, then it will be appropriate to do the same at the articles for those other shows. Simply stating the demographics avoids all this—I've thus altered my proposed wording above. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 19:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
      "we haven't seen a source giving "authorial or studio intent" – Yes, exactly. The OR is in equating a min. age rating with such intent and declaring what the intended audience is. Same goes for deducing such intent from a 20% audience figure (which is much lower than I would have expected, actually). It doesn't say anything about what the intended audience is, only what kids will watch when parents don't strictly control what they can view (they actually will tend toward adult fare; HBO, Cinemax, etc., banked on it in the heyday of wired cable TV, airing fairly racy stuff from about 9pm onward, well under the bedtime of the average teenager). Anyway, consider that it's not necessary for WP to try to precisely identify the intended audience. If we don't have the sources to say with absolute certainty that it's beyond adults, then we shouldn't say just because we might think it's True.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • As long as it is clear in the lead that this isn't a program for children, reflecting the often crude and adult-themed content, the precise phrasing has flexibility. Pointing out the ratings is one way to do so, noting the demographics is another, marketing analysis is also useful. Or, all of the above. I would, however, point out that it IS adult-focused and just because those under 18 may watch it does not change the clear tone of the show. Montanabw(talk) 21:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Curly, maybe it'd be good to boldly add that information to the body of the article, without waiting for the discussion about the lead to resolve. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
    • The last time I made a bold edit to the article, it resulted in an editwar, accusations of having psychological issues, and undying acrimony, with PAs and accusations of bad faith directed at me as recently as yesterday. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
      • You exaggerate. You made a bold edit yesterday,[4] and there has been no edit war. As for the claims of personal attacks and bad faith, I do believe you're being overly sensitive. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
        • There was nothing "bold" about the edit, and you're doing everything you can to keep this personal and avoid discussion. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
          • Well, technically it was a revert of the closer's reasonable amendment in light of the close but I was assuming good faith. Now, instead of avoiding a response and making excuses, is there a reason that you can't make the bold revert that WhatamIdoing suggested? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
            1. Please go read WP:LISTGAP before replying.
            2. Curly is correct than in the WP:BRD model, "reverting" is not considered a "bold" edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
            "Now, instead of avoiding a response and making excuses"—I've already told the closer that, as this has been so contentious, no such edits should be made until a consensus has been reached. You obviously whipped out the "instead of avoiding a response" to mock me. Just where is the response I've been asking you for weeks for? What, concretely, is the issue with exlicitly stating the demographics elsewhere in the lead? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
            • @Curly Turkey and AussieLegend: Both of you are constructive editors and I think honestly it's time to bury the hatchet. This personal feud has been going on for a while and in the long run, it won't benefit either of your causes or this community as a whole. So, let's call it a break and stop with the constant jibes alright, both of you do good work and it would impress me if you both could work to resolve this together, consider this my personal request to you both. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 07:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
              • I've been more than happy to discuss this since I started the discussion. I'm still hoping we can move forward with proposed wording. We already have some proposals and we should be concentrating on discussing those, not this. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
                • Great! Now that we've put this behind us, could you please tell us what concrete issues there might be to stating the demographics elsewhere in the lead? I haven't seen anyone present an argument yet against this elegant, unproblematic solution. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
                  • I don't think anyone can determine whether the solution is elegant or unproblematic without an example of what you mean. Do you have some wording in mind? --AussieLegend (✉) 21:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
                    • I provided an example in my first comment. It's similar to a proposal BU Rob13 made during the RfC—you responded to his comment, but not to his proposal. JaykeBird supported it. I also proposed "the show's target audience is teens and adults" during the RfC—you also responded to that comment, but not to the proposal. Whatamidoing supported it, and made another similar proposal. We have at least four explicit supports for something like that, several implicit or unopposed, and not one criticism against it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
                      • Your first comment was this and I don't see a proposal. Or do you mean this? If so, it's more wordy than it needs to be for the lead. The audience that views it is not so important as the audience at which it is targeted, and that's clearly adults. SMcCandlish has already pointed out that claiming it is targeted at teens is a bit ORish. You countered that claiming that a source showed viewing figures for teens but "who watches it" and "who it is targeted at" are two different things. Using that source to support a claim about the target demographic is WP:SYNTH. I provided a source saying that the series is targeted at adults. You claimed it was cherry-picked but it was most certainly not. I did a search and that was the first source that I randomly picked from page 1 of the results. I'm afraid I still prefer "animated sitcom targeted towards adult audiences[1]" - it's short, conveys the important information, includes links to provide additional information to our readers and is sourced. It's also had support from other editors. We really don't need to turn this discussion into War and Peace. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
                        Well, it's at least potentially ORish; there may well be a source that shows that the actual intended market is inclusive of teens, though if you actually watch the show, that seems pretty implausible to me. I'm reminded of the ongoing mega-dispute at WT:MOSFILM about secondary sourcing for changes in critical reception of a film over time. It's the same issue. We need secondary sourcing (WP:AEIS-style) of the actual intended audience of the show, not WP-editor assumptions about it based on what a "nanny ministry/agency" thinks should be the minimum view age (I'm surprised they didn't set it much higher, given the filithiness of show. >;-) Even aside from that, it's almost wearily focused on parental concerns, and nothing in it speaks to those of teenagers; the ones in the show are mercilessly used as the butts of cruel humor that's all from an adult perspective. PS: ""animated sitcom targeted towards adult audiences" seems like the right links and structure to me but the wording's a little clumsy; "animated sitcom targeted at an adult audience" is shorter and more logical ("targeted toward" is the same glitch as "centered around"). "Aimed at" would be a tiny bit shorter but would result in too much alliteration. Just "for" might be an overstatement.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
                        • SMcCandlish|: this source has some interesting things to say about the show's demographics. Of course, it leaves in the air why the show's demographics are opening-sentence material in the first place. Have you seen the editwarring over this stuff happening at The Simpsons? An FA that got along happily without this info until last month, and has since become a battlefield over the word "adult" (and no, I'm not involved). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
                          Yeah, hopefully our big-ol' thread here will come to a solution that can be applied more generally. As for the article you link to, I don't buy the premise. This is written by someone who doesn't understand (or remember their own) teen psychology. Teens watch a show like that because it's getting away with something. It's like sneaking a drink from Dad's liquor cabinet. Anyway, the intent of the piece seems to be that the producers should be targeting teens more, and change the nature of the jokes from '70s and '80s references (my demo) to ones that 15-year-olds will get. So, it's against the idea that the show is presently targeted at that demo, just that its fairly popular in that group despite who it's actually intended for. The fact that Peter just made a joke about anal sex with a pig is why the kids like it. It's transgressive and they'd be in trouble if Mom caught them watching it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
                          Well, that's subjective on both our part and that of these opinion pieces. Cramming this info into the lead in the first place I thought was a compromise—I'm not alone amongst the commenters here in thinking it doesn't belong in the lead at all. The opening sentence is the last place I (as a reader) would want or expect to see it.  The Sinking of the Lusitania—with its politcal intent and horrrifying scenes of death and destruction, including a helpless drowning mother unable ot save her baby—sure as ducks wasn't aimed at children, but it'd be extraordinarily inappropriate to have "adult animation" anywhere in that article. It's POV to assume as a default "cartoons are for children" in the first place. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
                      • (edit conflict)
                        1. "First comment" of this discussion, obviously.
                        2. Your source is extremely problematic, as detailed below, and thus cannot be used. It's an article about shows that are enjoyable for adults, and includes several shows targeted at children.
                        3. SMcCandlish did not call reporting the stats from the New York Times source SYNTH.
                        4. "too wordy"—more than one !voter suggested not mentioning the target audience at all, in which case your five words would be "too wordy". I don't disagree with those commenters, either—it wouldn't bother me to see such superfluous information dropped from the lead entirely. If included, there's no reason to clutter the opening sentence with it, nor to misrepresent the show's viewership.
                        • You're giving the impression that you will under no circumstances consider moving this information out of the lead sentence. Perhaps to demonstrate good faith, you could show us a standalone example you'd find acceptable. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
                          Hmm, moving this stuff to another sentence in the lead might actually be the solution. I'm a big fan of MOS:LEAD's admonition to write around disputes. [Then again, I wrote it, so I'm biased. ;-] Agreed with "It's an article about shows that are enjoyable for adults, and includes several shows targeted at children." There are likely better sources to use. AL says he just picked that one as the first search hit, so probably not a big deal. NYT: Not synth as stats, but extrapolating intent from who's watching would be synth. The fact that this is complicated is a strong argument for moving the audience-related material to another sentence or two.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
                          Which, of course, is my point. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
                          Yes, I'm agreeing with you that moving it out of the lead sentence is the probable solution. It gives breathing room to include clearer language, and to work in different sources on different aspects, e.g. what the declared intended audience is, and how that compares to what ratings authorities say, and what the known actual demographics are. The same technique could be applied, for that matter, at the Spider Man TV show's article; it's potentially encyclopedically interesting that a show intended for kids had a significant adult audience, and that this had an effect on the show. Our Doctor Who article is probably the best model for addressing that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
                          Handled well outside the lead, I see. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
                          Yes, but a different issue. The actual nature of the show has markedly changed (and more than once). That's not the case here; the demographic thing is a pretty simple matter, comparatively speaking. It seems lead-worthy even if it's maybe not helping in the first sentence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  01:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
It's POV to assume as a default "cartoons are for children" in the first place. - Regardless, that's how cartoons have traditionally been seen, at least since the '50s and '60s and Saturday morning cartoons. You might be too young to remember those.
Your source is extremely problematic, as detailed below, and thus cannot be used. It's an article about shows that are enjoyable for adults, and includes several shows targeted at children. - The source is reliable, it's titled "The Top 25 Animated Series for Adults", and it specifically includes Family Guy in that list so I don't see the issue. If your opposition is because it listed Rocky and Bullwinkle and The Spectacular Spider-Man as "adult" series. Meanwhile, the New York Times tells us that over 20% of the show's viewers are under 18. then I don't see that as a valid argument. Rocky and Bullwinkle has clear adult themes and, as I've already pointed out, who actually watches it is not necessarily the same as the target demographic.
SMcCandlish did not call reporting the stats from the New York Times source SYNTH. - I never said he did. I said that, for the reasons explained. Using the people who watch it as justification for its target demographic is clearly WP:SYNTH.
You're giving the impression that you will under no circumstances consider moving this information out of the lead sentence. - Keeping it in the lead sentence is consistent with WP:TVLEAD and the way that we write TV articles. Moving it somewhere else just leads to writing multiple words when a couple will do. Why overcomplicate the text when simplicity works? You're not being paid by the letter. KISS. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
You went way off the edge whe you attempted to defend use of that ridiculously inappropriate source, and you're not giving the impression you're interested in consensus-building at all. Just what is this obsession with polluting the lead, here and at The Simpsons? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, there's a good faith response. Not really much to say to that. BTW, I haven't been involved at The Simpsons. Maybe other editors don't have the same beliefs that you do. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Non sequiturs contribute nothing to the discussion, and you've undermined your credibility by defending your use of that source. We have five explicitly in favour of moving, one (two if you include me) in favour of outright removal, and the rest have stated they would accept it, are unopposed, or have not stated opposition, with the sole exception of yourself. If you want consensus to go your way, you'd better ditch the tactics you've been using and properly engage in the discussion. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
The continued aggression in your posts is not conducive to a positive outcome. I'd ask you to please "back off" a bit and try to be more tolerant of the opnions of others. The RfC is over and the outcome, as stated by the closer, was the "rough" consensus was that "adult animated sitcom" was undesirable and, essentially, we need to come up with something different. In the post-RfC discussion, 11 editors have so far participated to this end. Of those, only two (you and SMcCandlish), have suggested moving the content out of the lead sentence as a possible action. I don't know where you get five from. Nobody has suggested outright removal, including you. The proposed wording has progressed from "animated sitcom for adults" to "animated sitcom targeted at an adult audience" an that is where we stand at this time. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
"I don't know where you get five from."—from the RfC, of course. This is explicitly a continuation of that discussion. As it stands, there is no mention of demographics in the article, and nothing like a consensus to add "animated sitcom targeted at an adult audience". You can prefer that all you want, but if you're not willing to engage properly in the discussion, then you should give up hope on consensus falling on such an outcome. Those opposed have given concrete reasons for why it's problematic or otherwise undesirable—reasons that don't amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Per the relevant guidelines, the only outcomes from the discussion as it now stands can be (a) no consensus, thus the lead stands as it is with no mention of demographics; or (b) moving demographic info to somewhere else in the lead.
I'm open to either of these outcomes. If you don't like either, the onus is on you to build a consensus for your desired outcome. Making personal comments about me didn't help you in the RfC, and it's not helping you now, so I'm advising you (again) to change your tactics. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
The involvement of those in the RfC terminated with the closure of the RfC. That's why you had to ping the participants, to get them to participate here. Those who chose not to respond to your ping have not contributed to this discussion. Their opinions were relevant at the RfC, but not with the "post-RfC cleanup", which has to be based on the RfC closer's determination of the outcome. What that means is that you can't stack the results here with comments made by the RfC participants.
nothing like a consensus to add "animated sitcom targeted at an adult audience". - Based on the participants at this discussion, we have 5 of the 11 participants who initially agreed with "animated sitcom for adults". Of those, 3 later changed to a preference for "animated sitcom targeted towards adult audiences", most prior to tweaking that wording to "animated sitcom targeted at adult audiences". Another indicated support for "animated sitcom targeted towards adult audiences" without stating a preference for "animated sitcom for adults". Two editors made no comment on wording, one made general comments but nothing specific and another only suggested that "Adult animation" may be a suitable wikilink. So, of the editors who commented on the specific wording, all 6 expressed support for either "animated sitcom for adults" or "animated sitcom targeted toward/at adult audiences". How is that not consensus?
if you're not willing to engage properly in the discussion - What is that supposed to mean? I am participating! I'm certainly not disregarding opinions I don't like.
Per the relevant guidelines, the only outcomes from the discussion as it now stands can be (a) no consensus, thus the lead stands as it is with no mention of demographics; or (b) moving demographic info to somewhere else in the lead. - That's not the case at all. We've had all editors who have commented on the wording agreeable to one of the changes as suggested while only two editors have discussed moving the content out of the lead sentence. I suggest you re-read the discussion more thoroughly. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, for my part, I prefer "animated sitcom targeted at an adult audience", "animated sitcom targeted at adult audiences", one of those with "toward" instead of "at", and finally "animated sitcom for adults", in descending order, and with the terms linked as shown in examples above. I think, at this point, much of the dispute would evaporate if this material were put in a second or later sentence in the lead, but retained in the lead. This would also make it less likely to cause further disruption if additional demographic info is added at some point, since the "precious" lead sentence will not be at issue. If it's really necessary we can have another RfC, but this seems like trivia to me and others may feel the same way. That said, it's not uncommon to do a followup clarification RfC short on the heels of one that failed to resolve all the questions. So, permissible but not always the best option.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  01:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I fail to see why we need to move the content from the lead sentence. How is doing that any better than "Family Guy is an American animated sitcom targeted at an adult audience"? It's especially difficult when we don't have a current draft of the proposed alternate text breaking up the first sentence. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
You're working from the assumption that it needed to be part of the opening sentence in the first place. You've yet to provide justification for its inclusion at all, let alone in the opening sentence, and your opposition to moving it has been "it would be a few more words"—which is hardly an argument at all. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The point is that the content was there and the RfC outcome was that we find alternate wording. Your answer avoids answering the question that was asked. i.e. Why is splitting the content better than the proposed wording. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I've explained why ad nauseam, and "Your answer avoids answering the question that was asked" was obviously worded to get under my skin after your stonewalling during the RfC. This is a tactic you keep resorting to. To reiterate: it's misleading, awkward, and WP:UNDUE, and I've gone into each of these points in detail here and in the RfC. Again, you're avoiding giving any sort of rationale for putting this information in the opening sentence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
"The involvement of those in the RfC terminated with the closure of the RfC."—that would be extremely convenient for you, but it doesn't work that way. You've WP:CANVASSed, by the way, and I'll be reporting you. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm getting mixed signals here. You actually agreed that the proposed text was fair,[5] but now you claim it's misleading. Family Guy is an animated sitcom, it is targeted at adult audiences so how is that misleading? The text is clear, it's not awkward at all and it's certainly not WP:UNDUE since this is basic information. I just don't see the problem with it and you're not convincing me that there is any problem. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

You've not made it clear why you think this is "basic information". It sounds incidental to me, and I removed it because it stuck out like a sore thumb, as we don't see these disclaimers opening articles on comics, video games, or fantasy novels. I was willing to compromise by having it included elsewhere in the lead, though I'd prefer it were left out—that much should be clear from my initially removing it. You still haven't told us how the article would suffer from moving it to another sentence (or removing it entirely, for that matter). To repeat, it would be helpful if you could tell us: (a) what makes it "basic information", and how such an assertion is NPOV; and (b) how the article would suffer by moving it out of the opening sentence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
It's pretty much common sense: name, genre, target demographic. That's all pretty basic stuff.
It sounds incidental to me, and I removed it because it stuck out like a sore thumb, as we don't see these disclaimers opening articles on comics, video games, or fantasy novels. - This is a TV program, it is not a comic, video game, or fantasy novel. We don't write all articles to the same template. As for why you removed it, that wasn't why you said you removed it. You're very demanding of me, expecting me to explain everything but I'm not the one who has to justify moving it. I'm simply not willing to support a move until such time as you provide a draft of what you think the new text should be. I've asked for one, both here and elsewhere.[6] That request was supported by another editor,[7] and yet you refuse, instead continuing to assume bad faith and attack me. Why won't you just provide a draft so we have some indication of what you actually want? We can't do anything until such time as you do. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
You have my draft in my first comment. You've indicated you've read it.
"It's pretty much common sense: name, genre, target demographic. That's all pretty basic stuff."—almost no TV articles have demographic information in the opening sentence, and most have none anywhere in the lead, so, no, this is nothing like "common sense" or "basic stuff", and you won't find support for such an extraordinary claim. Try again. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
What you wrote in your first comment is Something like "The show targets is viewed primarily by an audience of adults and teenagers" or whatever. That is clearly not adequate as even a draft. Are you seriously saying we should include "The show targets is viewed" in an article? Even if we eliminate the struck through text we are left with "The is viewed" which is clearly flawed. And what's with "or whatever"? Is what you wrote both the first and second sentences, the second sentence, the sixty-fourth sentence or what? A draft should be something detailed, like Family Guy is an American animated sitcom targeted at an adult audience. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
More bad faith. You obviously don't believe I suggested including struck comments in the text, and you've obvioulsy read the part of the discussion that lead to my striking those words, so the only conclusion I can draw is that you're trying to disrupt the discussion. Again. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
You said that your draft was in your first comment and that is what was there. I can only go by what you've written. Honestly, I'm sick to death of this. Until such time as you can actually show a proper draft I'm not continuing down this track any more. I'm sticking with modification of the lead sentence since there is, at this time, no other option. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Adult animation

Latest comment: 7 years ago27 comments4 people in discussion

Adult animation may be a relevant article or wikilink regarding this article. Softlavender (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

  • The link should continue to be used; just pipe whatever language we settle on above, e.g. [[Adult animation|animation for an adult audience]] or whatever. It does a disservice to our readers to hide the fact that we have a relevant article on the subgenre, just because someone doesn't like the title; they can take that concern to WP:RM about the title of the article Adult animation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The aim of the link is to avoid ambiguity by directing the reader to an article that clarifies what is meant by the term. Ironically, this is also to correct any mistaken POV. Of course we're always going to get readers who just don't bother following links. You can lead a horse to water... --AussieLegend (✉) 08:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
    • If the only way to avoid ambiguity is to follow a link, then the text is broken. I've asked you several times now—what concrete issue do you have with spelling out the demographics explicitly elsewhere in the lead? Can we finally get an answer? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
      • As I have said before, the text is only ambiguous if you have some pre-conceived notion that doesn't match with society in general. For some reason there are people like that and we have to cater for them. The link is simply an aid. (and no, "aid" does not mean "sex aid" ;)). --AussieLegend (✉) 14:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how linking to the one relevant genre article equates to "appeas[ing] genre warriors ... by allowing them to cram every genre they can 'source' into an article's opening sentence". There is no slippery slope when we have a totally flat surface. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
The point remains: is this for the benefit of readers, or to satisfy an editor's POV? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
But "the point" is just that your PoV is that some other editors have a PoV, so it's kind of a circular pattern. It's clearly factual that adults are [among the] intended audience and that children are not. It's a disputed claim that teens are also among the intended audience. Absent better sourcing, I don't see a way past that. I also don't think it needs to be resolved right this second. Better wording can be put in place now, and this side dispute resolved when it's resolvable. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  01:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
SMcCandlish: Leaving out a piece of information in the lead that is normally left out is not "PoV". We don't see this issue with comics, fantasy novels, or video games, which all suffer from the same prejudice of "being for children". Nobody has called for slapping this label on The Playboy, despite the uncensored jizzing penises. The PoV is:
(a) the assumption that animation is inherently for children, thus we must "think of the children" by providing them with a warning that this instance is not (something Wikipedia does not do); and
(b) the assumption this information is so central to the subject of the article that it must be in the lead sentence.
And this is ignoring how problematic it is to label it as "for adults" in the first place, which, for example, could mean "targeted at adults", or "appropriate for adult audiences" (which is the meaning AussieLegend's source adheres to, and which he continues to defend).
Look at it another way: remove the demographic information from the lead, and what is lost? Anything at all? Nobody missed it in the firt 16 years of the Simpsons article, and its addition there has drawn a lot of opposition. Compare that to dropping "animated" or "sitcom"---in those cases, we break the article. Clearly "adult" is not a defining identifier. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think censorious disclaimer waiving is the intent at all (however clumsy some of the approaches have been). Whether an assumption that cartoons are usually for kids is a good one to make (clearly not since ca. the early 1990s, and longer in Japan), many people do make it, so having at least some basic demographic information in the lead is arguably part of accurately summarizing the topic, which is what the lead is for. The Simpsons case is different, since the show is clearly targeted directly at teens and their concerns at least as much as at parents and theirs. FG's primary distinction from TS is that it's targeted firmly at adults, with a lot of sexual and "teens really need to just STFU" humor. It's not unusual at all for WP to indicate the demographic in the lead if we think readers might not intuitively get it. E.g., to return to Doctor Who (the demo of which has become muddied, even just in the last few seasons), our article on the spin-off The Sarah Jane Adventures makes it clear it's aimed at children, and on the spin-off Torchwood that it has an adult demographic. Notably, neither do so in the lead sentence but both in the lead section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  17:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Neither article defines the shows by its demographics, does it? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think our articles define anything, but summarize and logically [we hope/attempt to] arrange sourced facts about them. Demographics/audience will often be a part of that for a topic like this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The article defines Family Guy as an "animated sitcom" and Doctor Who as "a British science-fiction television programme". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
But I'm talking about Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures. As for Doctor Who, its demo has such a long and convoluted history it would be crazy to lay that out in the lead. It might be feasible to say in the lead that it's present demographic appears to be older children to adults, but even this is apt to be disputed, and it might well change again next season; we have no idea what to expect, since they're making the Doctor a woman for the first time, and a lot of the production staff are changing. This kind of chaos doesn't apply to Family Guy (nor to Torchwood or TSJA).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  23:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
"Torchwood (UK: /ˈtɔːrtʃˌwʊd/) is a British science fiction television programme"
"The Sarah Jane Adventures is a British science fiction television programme"
I don't see either of these shows being defined by its demographics, either. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Family_Guy/Archive_11&oldid=1083502886"