Talk:Trey Parker and Matt Stone

Merge proposal

(Note: This is about a merge proposal for articles Trey Parker and Matt Stone.)

For the same reason we have Coen brothers, the Wachowskis, and Markus and McFeely: their professional careers overlap so much that separate biographies are highly repetitive. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 22:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose

These folks are two people with differing histories, differing aspects to a point where they are unique. People are unique. I feel silly saying that, but it's true. Why don't we merge Jeff "Swampy" Marsh and Dan Povenmire together? their creative projects are practically the same. They worked together for years. ANSWER: they are different people. ToNeverFindTheMets (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation/South Park task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 22:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose They are not the same people, despite working together. (You should have put this discussion on either one of the two current BLP articles rather than create a redirect just for a merge discussion.)   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 10:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose not at all repetitive to have different bio pages. They are distinct individuals who also have separate professional ventures from one another, even when frequently collaborating together, and also different personal lives. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  not at all repetitive? Right now the ledes are identical except for one sentence. Most paragraphs of the career sections are exact copies. Of course early and personal life are different, but the Coen brothers model would work for that. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 04:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Hameltion: Have you thought of making a merged draft in your user space and presenting it for others to see?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

For a case of siblings/cousins, I could potentially see a basis for a joint page, but these guys have no known genealogical connection. They're friends who met in college and shouldn't be treated as an always-connected pair. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Grorp: Good idea – started an initial draft for the basic idea. Interestingly, I understated earlier the amount of overlap: the only difference outside of early and personal life (i.e., in what they're notable for) seems to be Parker's voice role in Despicable Me 3. If I missed anything unique from Stone's article please let me know. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 05:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Re "if I missed anything": Sorry not interested in the topic to read either article. The only reason I was alerted here is because it was on Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/Article alerts.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Matt was featured in This Film Is Not Yet Rated which didn't include Trey, also a glance at both List of roles and awards of Matt Stone and List of roles and awards of Trey Parker shows other differences between the two men. There might be additional roles that their pages neglect to mention. Either way, I still believe it's best for them to have their own bio articles. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: Like what the others have said already, not the same. William Hanna and Joseph Barbera worked together but have separate articles. Ziggy Coltrane (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support – The clear majority of their ventures are together, so it makes more sense to have one article than to maintain two separate articles with the same material. A quick search online supports the idea that coverage of one typically includes the other. However, separate articles might be warranted since the two typically have separate credited roles on projects (i.e., Parker is generally the sole director). More evidence that their roles are truly separate (unlike, for instance, the Coens receiving separate directing/producing credits despite working together) would better justify separate articles. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think the examples used as a comparison are faulty. Those three articles are about pairs who were complete equals when they worked. Parker and Stone, though, have never been that way; Parker is the guy who is in charge creatively, whereas Stone plays a supporting role and handles executive affairs. This is pretty apparent based on their credits (Parker directed all their movies, directs South Park, and has written the vast majority of episodes himself). He also earned an Oscar nomination, given he wrote all the Bigger Longer & Uncut songs, which Stone didn't. Also, Parker and Stone are notable as performers, and performer articles who are all put in one article are pretty rare (barring ones who have no arguments to outside notability or always worked together, which isn't the case here). --Quiz shows 20:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. They are not siblings or relatives. They are not a single entity. If they have a production company or a creative company that is a single entity, then create a Wikipedia article on that. As is, I don't think this partnership rises to the level of Rodgers and Hammerstein or Rodgers and Hart, because I don't know of any current usage of a similar term that rises to that level of prominence, and even if it did, it would be a separate article on their collaborations (such as Trey Parker and Matt Stone productions), not a merger of the two biography articles, because Trey Parker's bio is much too long. Softlavender (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Have to say I'm surprised by the hair-splitting about credits and cameo roles when the bulk – the vast majority – of each individual article contains exactly the same text. In other words each article is already written as a dual biography – and duplicated. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  • No, each article is not a dual biography. Parker's biography is not duplicated in Stone's, and vice versa. Descriptions of their joint productions/credits are nearly duplicated, but their biographies are not. Softlavender (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
    • If you're referring to Early life and Personal life, those sections are hardly about what they're notable for. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 04:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
      • It is irrelevant that the non-duplicate content is the stuff that isn't what makes them notable; it is however what makes them individuals. If you're so concerned about maintenance of duplicate content, then have you considered using Template:Excerpt?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
        • Surely they deserve less weight, and anyway most sources in those sections are dual profiles. But if this discussion stalls out, that template seems like a workable idea, thanks, I'll look into it. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 04:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
          • As for due and undue weight, that guideline is about content within an article. Of course most BLPs' early life or personal life sections are junior to what makes them notable, and those sections should hold less weight than the bulk of a BLP. But that "weighing" isn't related to your question for one or two articles. And let's be honest, per consensus so far, your proposal for a single article already looks like a losing proposition. With your passion/persistence for this subject (of a merger of career content) I'm quite sure you could figure out how to implement excerpts in a way that would work. It might require several excerpts throughout the article; maybe using one per section. You might even be able to do it on the live articles, one section at a time.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
            • Sorry, should've made myself clearer, didn't mean to invoke due weight at all. I meant to say that these relatively trivial sections should not be the main barrier to merging these articles, as opposed to weighing just how closely their careers overlap. Don't mean to seem overly persistent, ought to have elaborated more fully in my opening comment. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 05:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
              • Yes, those biographical elements should be the main barrier to merging these articles. That is the whole point people are making here. If you want to make an article called Trey Parker and Matt Stone productions, then create one; no one is stopping you. But note that, for example, articles like Rodgers and Hammerstein or Rodgers and Hart do not mean that the individual articles on Richard Rodgers, Oscar Hammerstein II, and Lorenz Hart ceased to exist. Softlavender (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it should remain both articles just called Trey Parker and Matt Stone respectively. I don't want to be merged because I'm used to it. Ange2444 (talk) 18:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Closed, failed proposal

I'm going to declare this merge proposal failed... and stale. Will be removing the merge tags from the top of the two main articles.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)