User talk:ISpitonYourGravy

Re: Ang Probinsyano
Good day!

I dropped by your talk page to talk about your recent edits to Ang Probinsyano. While I concede that some of the information in the infobox aren't cited, that's down to the fact that not a lot of media outlets or the network itself have taken up some of the items such as directors and writers as topics in news articles. The information is up on IMDb, but before you lecture on how IMDb is not a reliable source, hear me out. I am well aware of that that's why I haven't taken that route yet. Before any of the information written in the page's infobox ever made it there, I took painstaking time and effort to confirm that those credited as writers, directors, musical scorers, etc. were indeed credited. By painstaking, I mean hours upon hours of replaying episodes of the show. And yes, I've also been looking for references outside of IMDb to attach to the information written in the infobox, and so far the only ones I've found were for directors Rodel Nacianceno and Michael de Mesa. I've been editing Ang Probinsyano and its allied pages for as my account has been active and I've made it my mission to keep the information listed there as accurate as possible. Other editors, even administrators have come and gone editing the page and they never found anything objectionable with it. Hence, you can say that's become a tacit consensus among us who have edited the page. So I'm going to plead my case with you, leave it as it is.

Warmest regards

Gardo Versace (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * TV shows themselves may be used as a primary source to support entries in the infobox; however, Template:Infobox television specifically reminds editors not to include unsourced genres and writing credits in the "writers" infobox field if the show has more than five writers. The infobox documentation also says that the "Production location" should be excluded if it's the same as the country of origin; since this show was shot in the Philippines and the shooting locations are located there, then the Production location should be Philippines. Don't believe me? See Template:Infobox television. ISpitonYourGravy (talk) 05:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, and since I don't want an edit war on my hands either, I'm going to concede this. I can't say I like this considering I practically wasted time carefully curating the info on the infobox, especially the writers field. But hey, rules are rules, right? But I'll be candid with you too, I can't say I enjoyed collaborating with you either. Gardo Versace (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Re: Ang Probinsyano writer
You didn't even acknowledge the edit summary I put in there and you went directly with flagging me for edit-warring. Tell you what, I've got proof that a HEADWRITER in Philippine television is just the same as a SCREENWRITER. I've already found a reference pointing to Joel Mercado but I'll risk getting banned or it getting reverted anyway so I'll explain it to you before putting it up. Again, I'm trying to achieve work out a consensus here. As you can see here, the article says Coco Martin co-wrote the film with Joel Mercado. The press didn't say in what capacity Mercado was a writer. Cross-reference that with Ang Panday (2017 film), the film they were set to co-write in the cited article and you'll see that Joel Mercado is a co-writer of the screenplay. Thus, a SCREENWRITER. You'll probably say it's unreferenced and the editor that put Joel Mercado up there just got it off IMDb, but posters say the same thing. Let me reiterate, he's merely DENOMINATED as a HEADWRITER because the show has a large pool of WRITERS. Those writers are SCREENWRITERS and its just a matter of SEMANTICS. Gardo Versace (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because Joel Mercado was the screenwriter of a movie doesn't necessarily make him de facto screenwriter of the TV show. On top of that, Ang Panday is in no way related to Ang Probinsyano, so how 'bout we restrict this discussion to the TV show and not make things complicated? At any rate, a head writer actually acts as a supervisor who creates and outlines the TV show idea and then sends this to the screenwriters to expand it into a teleplay, a script for a TV show. Thus it makes sense that the screenwriters (or staff writers) are given credit as "writers" on TV since they spend long hours trying to come up with a plot, characters and dialogue based on the head writer's outline, as well as beat deadlines imposed by the TV network. (Ever noticed that head writers are credited separately under "Head writers" on TV? Yep, it's because their responsibility is truly different from that of the screenwriters.) Now going back to that Wiki article, infobox docu is only restricting the "writers" parameter to the credited screenwriters; they literally do not want the head writers, associate writers, creative consultants or whatever. Feel free to disagree with me or Wikipedia, but the guidelines are clear cut. ISpitonYourGravy (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I do disagree, the thing is, Philippine television does not subscribe to a lot of conventions of television productions in the west. For example, a season in a US TV show is only 13 episodes, here you have a single season lasting 100+ episodes. So again, being that Philippine television does not fully follow television production conventions, semantics comes into play. The issue of semantics will tell you that there is no distinction between a headwriter and a screenwriter. The headwriter tag simply denotes that he is the head of a pool of writers. Notice how it's the writer's field I'm arguing over and not the locations or the genre field although you removed content there? I'm trying to compromise here because I do agree that the removal of the locations field is justified, ones in the genre field can be remedied since I've already collated the necessary references. It's the removal of the cintent on the writers field I have a problem with and I have plenty of references that I can put in there. I wouldn't, not yet anyway, until this is settled. Gardo Versace (talk) 06:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Apologies, but your calling this a semantics issue is your personal opinion and as such does not justify the inclusion of an edit not in accordance with infobox policy. For the last time, head writers do not belong in the infobox. Period. Any conspicuous attempt to restore genuinely incorrect edits—such as trying to support them with sources (however reliable) or personal opinions—may be seen as gaming the consensus-building process. Your only option is to abide by the rules, not stonewall. ISpitonYourGravy (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It's funny that the other day you said I'm projecting, when in fact it is you who is projecting. I hardly call this stonewalling or filibustering because I tried extending the olove branch when you saw everything in black and white. The rules say there should be consensus, right now there isn't save for a consensus of one - yours. That's why its ridiculous for you to be saying I'm stonewalling or playing the system. Fact of the matter is nobody saw a problem with the infobox before your edits. I do agree with some of the removals but the writers field is the one I believe that sits in the gray area. The issue of semantics here is hardly an opinion, its actually common sense. Open your eyes, you'd see not a lot of Philippine Television's conventions subscribe to the conventions of television. Gardo Versace (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)