Talk:All About the Washingtons

Cast list

BoogerD,
Middle name mentioned in dialogue is not enough. Cast list should be credit as how it is credit on the beginning credit or ending credit based on MOS:TVCAST. This is not about common sense. All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source. — Lbtocth^talk 22:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

He is credited as Deavon Washington not Deavon Gilbert Washington. See [1] — Lbtocth^talk 22:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:TVCAST is pretty clear about using credited names. Name enhancements is mostly in-universe trivia and is pretty meaningless in terms of understanding the character. Official names are out-of-universe official data and much easier to verify than some mention in an episode somewhere. Other articles not following the MOS does not set a precedent for this article to also ignore it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I know this may seem trivial or inconsequential but I've spent a good deal of time editing the page so I feel it worth discussing. Is what your suggesting that all pages (either cast lists or character articles) be edited to remove all mentions of parts of a character's name that isn't explicitly listed in the end credits? Because, frankly, I'm not sure many people would support that notion. I understand why the sentence was include in the MOS (to deter the use of made up names or conjectural names) but in this instance the character's full name can be verified within the show itself meeting Wikipedia:Verifiability. Below are just a few articles that include character's full names that do not appear in on screen credits but rather through dialogue:

• List of Friends characters
• Andy Bernard
• List of Orange Is the New Black characters#Joseph Salvatore "Joe" Caputo
• List of Lost characters
• There are of our course many, many other featuring instances of middle names being included while not appearing on-screen though I have opted to limit it to these few examples.

I'm not trying to be difficult here and I'm not trying to be a stickler here. If someone can present a compelling reason for not including the information I'd gladly accept it personally. Otherwise, I'm just not seeing the consistency between this case and a great multitude of others.

In response to @Geraldo Perez:, I'm not sure I quite understand what you are getting at. What exactly do you mean by "out-of-universe". The sentence ("Official names are out-of-universe official data and much easier to verify than some mention in an episode somewhere.") doesn't quite make sense. A great deal of information in any given film or television article (summaries, cast lists, directors, writers, episode titles) is included with out an inline citation because the work in question provides the opportunity for an individual to verify the information. I'd be curious to see what other say if this discussion were opened up on Wikiproject Television. – BoogerD (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, and this just occurred to me, the characters' names do not appear in the credits of the show anyway. So I'm not quite sure I'm buying into the notion that in this specific instance "we must follow the opening or end credits" because they do not provide guidance in regards to what is "official" for each character's name. The most accurate source for character names would be found in the dialogue of the show itself by that very train of logic. – BoogerD (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is the source how he is credited as [2]. — Lbtocth^talk 22:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The "compelling reason" is that all names should appear as credited (in cast lists), to avoid any appearance of WP:OR. Now, if you have a 'Cast and characters' listing with substantive character details, rather than a simple 'Cast' listing, then additional details can be included there – such as In episode [X], it was revealed that Daevon's middle name is "Gilbert". Where this becomes much less clear is what to do in the case of "main cast", whose character names are often not credited onscreen. In those cases, I think it's best to defer to how the character is predominantly referred to in reliable sourcing (including press releases for the show). Based on this, I agree with Lbtocth (and Geraldo P.) that in this case it should be Maceo Smedley as Daevon Washington, Joey's and Justine's youngest son. with no middle name included, based on TFC and this press release included therein. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure, except The Futon Critic is not the end all when it comes to sourcing information like this. It's not officially sanctioned by Netflix. I agree it is a reliable source (that would seem to be why they got all the characters' first names right) but it is in no way an official source. The episodes, being the highest primary source, should take precedence over a secondary source like TFC or a random review for example.

I must admit that I find it might arbitrary that this "rule" seems to matter so much in this instance but is somehow ok to ignore on multitudes of articles. @IJBall:, I typically agree with you on most issues (you are level-headed, reasonable, and knowledgable of policy) but I this I just can't see the logic. I suppose this hardline approach will be taken on the few articles I listed above (and the many other like them)? None of them include any such notes regarding the specific episode in which certain parts of a character's name were revealed. I'm quite certain that I, or anybody else for that matter, would be met with a great deal of pushback and quite a few reverts if they attempted such a wide-scale editing but I don't understand the logic behind the leaving of those articles, as is, and holding this one to different standard. – BoogerD (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@BoogerD: The credits are not part of the fictional narrative, they are a listing of companies, cast and crew and what they did for that show that are included in the airing, but not part of the story. Out-of-universe just means not part of the fictional story in-universe part of the episode. Name enhancements in the fiction itself beyond the credits is mostly trivia and plays very little part in understanding the character or the story. Unless there is some reason why someone's middle name or full-name beyond a credited hypocorism actually matters as a part of driving the plot there is really no value in caring about it. For list of character articles which give more details than this person played this part the credited name as a section heading and the enhanced name with proper sourcing may be appropriate as they generally go into a lot more details about the character than just a basically "actor" portrayed this "character" list. The pragmatic reason for keeping to the credits is ease of verifying them. Name vandalism is common and easy verifiability makes name vandalism easy to catch and fix. Saying watch all the episodes to verify a name is impractically difficult. In those examples you listed they likely should just list the credited names. I would expect pushback on any changes to established articles. Starting out, though, it would be best to stick to the MOS. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:OSE – plenty of articles out there are "done wrong", and none of us are under any obligation to go out and "fix" articles that we don't frequent. (For example, AFAIAC, many of the "superhero" show cast lists are done wrong, but I'm not going to bother with them...) I only focus on the articles I do frequent, or which I come across in my normal business about the site. But a guideline should generally be followed unless there's a compelling reason not to (and there isn't here). Finally you're ignoring the press release I cited which comes directly from Netflix – they do get to decide things like "correct" cast names in the absence of onscreen cast listings. So, in any case like this, I'm going to go with what the production company or network gives us over what any single editor thinks we should do. So, in this case, the middle name needs to go. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: What one considers "trivial" is arbitrary, no? I would understand if someone added something to one of the character descriptions along the lines of "So and so's favorite color is blue and their favorite food is pizza." and then someone deemed that to be trivial. But how does one determine what part of a character's name is in fact pertinent or irrelevant? An official list of credits for the series with the characters' names does not seem to exist (not in the show's opening or ending credits nor on Netflix's website). I completely understand the reasoning of verifiability but what, I must ask, is the arbitrary number necessary for such information to not become "impractically difficult"? How many times must something be mentioned? If memory serves the middle name in question here was mentioned more than once among 10 episodes.

@BoogerD: What I mean by trivial is it doesn't matter to the story in any way. A person's middle name, or full name if character is normally referred to by a hypocorism, is about as important to the story as a person's eye color. It does not impact the story or drive it unless there is an episode story arc where it actually is a plot driver. It does seem to be the type of minor detail fans like to know but really doesn't matter outside that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: I fully understand what your saying and, on the whole, I totally agree. Wikipedia is not a fan wiki or a compendium of trivia. I do remember the days of ten years ago when television articles were littered with trivia sections and things of that nature. I'm with you in the belief that they do not have a place here. However, I have a harder time accepting the notion that a character's full name can be deemed "trivial". Who appoints those to be arbiters of what is trivial and what is pertinent. Personally, it feels like a bit of stretch to equate a character's full name with something arbitrary like eye color. I've taken part in discussions as to whether titles, ranks, and honorifics should be included in articles for science fiction shows (like say Star Trek) or military or police type programs. Some deemed it trivial but others felt it much more relevant. In those cases the characters are more frequently than not referred to by their given names in articles or press releases yet their titles continue are frequently transcribed here. Granted that's a slightly different issue but I find it reasonably related in the sense that it also deals with parts of a character's name not necessarily included "out-of-universe". – BoogerD (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@BoogerD: It is trivial as is it basically not used for any purpose in the show. It is generally a passing mention and then dropped. It is not used in story to identify a character from the others. It is not deemed important enough to be mentioned in the credits (in-episode or on official show communications). The purpose of an name is to uniquely identify people in a group. Middle names are seldom used anywhere except in real-life legal documents and crime identification. That is why a middle name is just basically fluffy trivia about a person. Other parts of a person's identity may have a point in a show if relevant. A rank in a military or police setting to show power relationships, an academic rank in a college setting. Those matter in context. A person's middle name is almost never used or needed. Comparison to eye color was deliberate, it is just a fluff detail that has no importance about a character in a work of fiction. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Hmmm...given your above message it seems you find middle names to be not just irrelevant to fictional chracters but to human beings in general. I say this not to be snarky or impertinent: but maybe we should reconsider including middle names any article at all. Given the argument presented above it is sounds like its just trivial information not relevant particularly anywhere. – BoogerD (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@BoogerD: Yes, trivial info about a person pretty much in real life as well except when necessary for unique identity over a large population, generally not used or even known in any circle of acquaintances. Don't often see credits giving out middle names and when they are in articles is mostly in articles extracted from watching episodes. Places where they are used are when part of a compound common name in a southern style such as "Billy Ray" and everyone actually calls him that. If we go just on credits we don't need to make value judgments of importance. For bio articles on real people MOS:FULLNAME says full legal name in intro but that does not apply to fictional characters. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez:, out of curiosity do you oppose that specific policy in the Manual of Style? I'm not necessarily asking whether you'd disregard it (I don't imagine you would as you seem pretty by-the-book) rather I'm wondering if you are of the opinion that it is unnecessary or that encourages the inclusion of what you deem "trivial". – BoogerD (talk) 04:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@BoogerD: I strongly support the full legal name in bio articles intro along with other identifying info such as birth date and notable occupation as it is necessary for full unambiguous identification of a real person to not be confused with someone else. Much as when full legal names are used in crime reports as it important to ensure the correct person is identified. One of the reasons this becomes an issue with fictional characters is that a lot of editors are trying to treat them like real people even when it is not necessary for that level of disambiguation. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

That sounds rather reasonable when put that way. When dealing with living persons, the greatest care and upmost accuracy must be taken. On that I agree unequivocally. I suppose I am just of the opinion that a cast character section isn't simply there to just disambiguate between one character or cast member and another. I mean, if that was the case, why include character descriptions at all? Or if all the characters have last names, why include their last names? By that logic character list articles are superfluous and most sections in article are unnecessary. I suppose because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and detail maintains a certain intrinsic value so far as it does not cross a line into excessiveness. It is that sort of dividing line that really differs from editor to editor and, honestly, most of the time cannot be justified one way or the other. I mean sometimes an opinion is just an opinion and one's aesthetic preference is merely their preference. I'm all for brevity and conciseness on this website but I'm thinking that my opinion on full character names is unlikely to change. – BoogerD (talk) 05:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

For basic info in the main article all we need is who the actors are and what character they play. A very brief description of the role helps in understanding what that character does to contribute to the story. A series has a premise and characters who contribute in some way and we would like to know both. A lot of cast lists just have first name only as that is all that is really necessary for telling characters apart. By going with what credits say we remove the editorial judgment and some of the conflict of how to label actors and characters as the production people make that decision and we just transcribe what they say. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I did not mean to ignore the linked press release, I honestly missed the link as I've tried to keep up with reading all of the responses and responding to them as they've come in. I'll admit that, that is about as official as it gets in that it comes directly from the company. I must say that, while I do feel strongly about my own position on this here, this isn't the "hill I'm willing to die on" as they say.

By the way, I hope I'm not across with any sort of aggressive demeanor here. I hope all of my comments here are taken in good faith and that the other editors involved in this discussion know that I argue here with the best intentions. I appreciate the dialogue started on this talk page and value the contributions and commitment that the other three of you make to this website on a daily basis. When getting into a back and forth like this, I feel it imperative to not lose sight of that. Cheers, BoogerD (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I detected no hostility in your comments, just a strong opinion on the subject. That's to be expected on Wikipedia... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for the levity @IJBall:. I enjoy contributing alongside you and appreciate all the work you do. Sometimes it feels like contributing on here is like throwing a message in a bottle into a large, black void and one wonders if anyone ever reads anything you've contributed or seen value in it. I know none of us are on here to be feted with praise () but I know it feels good to have other acknowledge your hard work. Just letting you know that I am one, of what I imagine is many, that notice all you do on here day in and day out. Thanks for being such a genial compatriot here. – BoogerD (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I think The Futon Critic link and the press release directly from Netflix are sufficient to list as Deavon Washington not Deavon Gilbert Washington on the cast list. And per following MOS:TV. — Lbtocth^talk 23:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

If the edit gets reverted, so be it. You won't see me throwing some sort of monumental temper-tantrum or engaging into some endless war. I disagree with the opinions stated above but, like I said above, this issue is not the "hill I'm willing to die on" and not a sticking point I'm about to lose my cool over. I will ask, however, that before another edit occurs in regards to this, might an opportunity be given for a discussion to opened over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. As it stands now, this discussion has only included the four of us (with two of them being brought here through what some might regard as Wikipedia:Canvassing which might not be the case honestly and is something I've been accused of now and then). I'd like to get some feedback from other editors and those in the community active in television-related articles. Hopefully a day or two could be given to see if anything else worthwhile comes from further discussion and greater inclusion from the editing community. I hope that seems reasonable enough. – BoogerD (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Before you accusing me of Wikipedia:Canvassing, it's not. Let me explain, IJBall and Geraldo Perez both have agreements and disagreements with me before. I am not influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way. They each have opinions of their own and often follow the MOS:TV. — Lbtocth^talk 00:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my wording made that come across as some sort of subtle dig or something. I promise you I didn't intend it to sound that way (and as I wrote that sentence I also felt compelled to write the caveat: "which might not be the case honestly and is something I've been accused of now and then"). I'm sorry for my phrasing there; it was a poor way of reaching the point which was to suggest the discussion be widened to include more voices other than those invited/notified of it. @Lbtocth:, just so you are aware, I don't take any of your comments personally and similarly to what I was saying to IJBall, I value all of the good work you do here and the vigilant effort you put on every day to clean up messes that other editors have made. You keep articles looking concise and professional and for that I am always grateful. I find such a pleasure to be editing alongside you most days of the week as you do consistently display your commitment to the mission of Wikipedia and your desire to further the project. I just want to make sure the crappy way in which I tried to get my point across in my last message didn't distract from the message itself. – BoogerD (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

And I guess the revert was done anyway. Hmm. I certainly won't revert it back as I'm sure I'd be accused of taking part in an edit war. I honestly wish more of an open discussion could have be instigated like I'd suggested before such a move was made again but, oh well, I suppose. Perhaps that discussion could still be opened though?

I can't say this issue matters that much to me in the long run. I'm sure I'll have forgotten about it in a few days time. I do find it funny (and this is more a note about the nature of Wikipedia itself and the many editors that contribute here) that four strangers in different parts of the world can spend over 2 to 4 hours having such a lengthy debate over the middle name of a fictional character in a series that has been reviewed so poorly and will be little remembered. I mean, I understand why were all here of course (I have had some of the most obnoxious wordy responses on this talk page) but I just find it slightly humorous when some of us end up devoting so much time to what seem like inconsequential debates when all of us would probably have served the project better contributing to other articles in more substantial ways. I don't mean to dismiss any of the points made here, including my own for that matter, but I just mean to say I feel as thought it would be hard to explain to someone what we've be doing for a good part of the day. Haha. – BoogerD (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@BoogerD: If you decided to post an official discussion on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, please post a redirect or link here so people would know it has been moved to a bigger official discussion on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television.— Lbtocth^talk 00:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Lbtocth: Of course. On the other end of things, I'll try and direct others to the discussion that we've already had here as well. Do you know if there is a specific template for linking discussion like that from talk page to talk page? I feel like I've seen other editors use one before. – BoogerD (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads up: Might be a little bit (like an hour or two perhaps). I've got to log off for a bit and get a few things done outside of the cyber realm of Wikipedia. When I get back I will open a new discussion over there and link it here. – BoogerD (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads up: I've informed the editors over at Wikiproject: Television about our discussion here and invited all to contribute to the conversation. I've directed them here as opposed to moving the conversation there due to the fact that we've already had such a lengthy back and forth at this location with a number of points made so it feels like it makes more sense to just continue it all here as opposed to rehashing everything there. For what its worth, I'm going to put a pause on my involvement in this discussion until tomorrow. There are few other things I want to edit before calling it a day and I think I've exhausted my ability to discuss this for the time being. Pleasant evening, BoogerD (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I've just popped over to give my thoughts on this. While I do think it is fine to mention extraneous details such as a character's middle name at a standalone character article, where the character has been proven to be noteworthy, it is too in-universy and trivial to be mentioned in a simple cast list if it is not commonly used. Basically, this article should follow MOS:TVCAST. If a middle name is independently of note, such as being named after someone significant, then that can be added separate from the cast list with reliable sourcing. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your input in the conversation @Adamstom.97:. I'll take this moment to say that I'm respectfully removing myself from this conversation. I can see that I'm winning no hearts and minds by continuing to espouse my opinion here. And that's ok. I've honestly exhausted all energy I can possibly devote towards this one edit. My 14-year-old dog had a massive seizure today and so I'm just feeling exhausted. I'm going to continue to edit here and there on Wikipedia today in order to decompress and relax but I think that this dialogue is more stressful than anything else. All is well and I hope I didn't bother anybody too much. All of my edits and opinions are in good faith and, what can I say, I'm a rather passionate individual. I'm grateful for everybody's time and generosity. Hoping all are having a nice evening, BoogerD (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@BoogerD: I hope there are no hard feelings. Removing the middle name was in good faith, I was following the MOS:TV as Daevon's middle name was not significantly used the whole season, his middle name was only used in one episode. It would be a different story if his middle name was used throughout the whole season. Ex. If everyone was calling him by his middle name. — Lbtocth^talk 16:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Lbtocth: No hard feelings at all. I understand where you are coming from and it simply boils down to the two of us having a difference of opinion. The last 24 hours have provided me with a little perspective on the situation and I've just come to the point where I don't feel it necessary to devote so much energy to this issue. My position hasn't really changed but I don't think I have the interest in advocating for it as much anymore. Anyways, its all good and I look forward to editing alongside you going forward. – BoogerD (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@BoogerD: It's Done. Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 08:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)