Talk:Solar Opposites

Justin Roiland Mike McMahan "and"
WP:BRD bold, revert, discuss.

User:CartoonnewsCP keeps asserting that the creators listed in the Infobox must be listed including the word "and" to match how the WGA credits them. Template:Infobox television does not show any suggestion that creators must be listed using "and" between them or that Wikipedia follows any recommendations set by WGA. Despite repeated request to show the guidelines or even a discussion that say this is necessary but CartoonnewsCP has not done so. My edit merely restores the article to the WP:STATUSQUO, the creators have been listed without "and" since 2018 the second edit after this article was created. and it is only recently that CartoonnewsCP has suggested it should be any different.

Also the edit CartoonnewsCP keeps making puts both creators on a single line but keeps the Template:Plainlist. There is no point using a list template for a single item. The edit CartoonnewsCP keeps suggesting seems to contradict MOS:PLIST.

Again show the guidelines. If project Television guidelines have changed or there are discussions recommending strictly following WGA credits then it should be very easy to point to the guidelines or a discussion. Post some links before accusing people of disruptive editing. -- 109.76.211.174 (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:TV we go by how they are credited. Duncanville and The Great North follow this correctly for example. Their creators are credited on the screen with the ampersand. Here it is "Created by: Justin Roiland and Mike McMahan". There is no subsection per the credits shown on screen, therefore should be listed as such with an "and". CartoonnewsCP (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:TV ... looking, no mention of WGA, no mention that "and" is required. What section of the page are you talking about, do you mean MOS:TVCAST which says and I quote: "The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits" and it says ordered, it doesn't say anything about including or directly copying WGA formatting or any necessity to include other words like "and" or "with" or anything else. This does not appear to support the claims made by CartoonnewsCP.
 * Duncanville and The Great North are examples that WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. They are both from 2001 and are a C class and a Start class articles, they aren't GA or FA, they are not good examples. From just a brief look at the article history I can see CartoonnewsCP is making the same argument about formatting on those articles too again asserting things must be done a particular way without pointing to any relevant guidelines or discussions.
 * CartoonnewsCP reverted again but the claims made by CartoonnewsCP are still unclear. CartoonnewsCP asserts that MOS:TV says something that it does not appear to say. -- 109.76.211.174 (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * CartoonnewsCP has made clear in another discussion that they are following the lead of User:YoungForever, who has also asserted that MOS:TV supports this formatting, although the guidelines do not currently make it clear. They have suggested that the general consensus of MOS:TV supports this extra formatting of the creators in the infobox but it has not yet been shown. I am waiting for further comments it that other discussion. -- 109.76.211.174 (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Despite their claims, this requirement to exactly follow the onscreen credits is simply is not stated in the guidelines. Requirements can change, if there really is a consensus to do things the way they claim it should be easy for them to make it clearer and update the relevant guidelines but they have not yet done so. I object to the unfounded assertions more than I object to the pointless formatting change, and I had other things to do anyway but I do not believe this change was necessary or an improvement. -- 109.76.128.149 (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The Pupa is not a "pet", IMHO
Someone described the Pupa as a pet, at least in the description of season 1, episode 1. The pupa isn't really a "pet", its role is more like that of a "baby" or a "toddler" in a human family. I've never found anything that described exactly what it is, but it seems pretty obvious when seen in the context of the show, as well as based on what Justin Roiland has specifically publically discussed about the show (that it is a kind of spoof of a modern family with gay parents.) Just my 2 cents, not a big deal. 2601:283:4600:870:5060:531:63C1:7535 (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)