Talk:Gen:Lock

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gen:Lock article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Animation: American / Web Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Web animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).

2010s Low‑importance

	2010s portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Requested move 28 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOVED Opposes based on the fact that official sources used "gen:LOCK" were downweighted/discarded as they went against guidelines (MOS:TMRULES): "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official"." Nor is "intended artistic representation" a policy/guideline based argument against the move. The consensus is thus for moving. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gen:LOCK → Gen:Lock – "LOCK" is not an acronym/initialism, so it should be lowercase per the guidelines at MOS:TMRULES. This also has use outside of Wikipedia; all articles from Variety use this capitalization. IagoQnsi (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support move. Unlike in a certain other Rooster Teeth show, we're not dealing with acronyms/initialisms here. ONR (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move. Which part of MOS:TMRULES are you referring to? Basically all the official sources refer to it as gen:LOCK (e.g.: Gray G. Haddock's post: https://roosterteeth.com/post/51791431 ). It's not a question of style as in the cited examples (TIME, KISS, ASUS, SONY Mobile). Trademarks in camelCase are allowed, and selective capitalization a la xkcd is also allowed per the MoS. Non-official sources on the first page of Google results (EW), (Inverse), (Deadline), all use gen:LOCK, too.. PvOberstein (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move. If anything, the "g" in "Gen:LOCK" should be lowercased, as per all official or reliable sources, including the Variety articles. Count3D (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move. It is referred to as "gen:LOCK" in all official sources, even outside of logos. —Jman "not a dude" 98 20:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is exactly the same as "SONY" and the other upper-case examples at MOS:TM. MOS:TM exists for cases like this. Just follow it. See also WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS, WP:OFFICIALNAME, MOS:TITLES, and about 1,000 previous RM precedents. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @SMcCandlish: Respectfully, I feel this is decidedly not the same as the Sony/SONY example. While Sony is often stylized as SONY, their own website and all external sources use "Sony Corporation of America", with normal capitalization. Literally every official and almost every non-official description of gen:LOCK capitalizes the post-colon letters, which suggests it is not a mere stylistic choice. Would this not be more in line with the non-standard capitalization allowed for LittleBigPlanet and xkcd (using the MoS examples)? PvOberstein (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Nah, you're coming at this as if it's just my opinion or something. It's not. We go over this again and again and again. If it not an acronym, we do not capitalize the letters in it. If it is an acronym we do capitalize them, even if some people don't (e.g. IKEA and SAGE Publications). There's almost nothing written about this particular subject in the real world that isn't gamer publications, and gamer publications slavishly imitate logo stylization; it's their collective house style. They do not follow our house style, and we do not follow theirs.
  Just a handful of cases from first two pages of results: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30] ff., etc., etc.
  There are literally several thousand of these, and the results are consistent. This is one of our most common types of move, and most of them are done manually/speedily, so the thousands that have gone to discussion are just the tip of the iceberg. One of the most common reversions of undiscussed move is also to undo over-capitalization to mimic trademark stylization. See also WP:OFFICIALNAME and MOS:TITLES: WP just does not care how "official" something is. LittleBigPlanet is camelcase and we do use that for trademarks, virtually any time it is used in one, because this has become conventional English since the rise of the Internet. OVERCAPITALIZATION TO MARKETING-SCREAM AT EVERYONE has not. Variances from the consistent treatment of article titles are extremely rare; xkcd is one such exception, as is iPod/iPhone/iOS, and k.d. lang. They're exceptions because a) they're (allegedly – see below) very difficult to find in any other form – and not just in one genre of writing but across all of them; and b) the community is slightly more tolerant of all-lowercase than all-caps because it does not have a "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! NOW DAMMIT!" PoV-pushing effect. Actually, even the k.d. lang case is iffy and probably needs to be revisited; it's regularly spelled "K. D. Lang" (with or without the initials-space) in non-entertainment publications like The New York Times.
  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  
  @SMcCandlish:Thanks very much for explaining that in such detail. I very much appreciated reading that! While I feel I must oppose on the principle of it being against its intended artistic representation (right now it is too deliberate, and apart from one example consistently written the same way everywhere), I now much better understand wiki's reasoning. I am curious to see how the fans in the community react after release. Perhaps there is more to be revealed surrounding the name. Count3D (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  I "appreciate that you appreciate", but please do not do things like "I must oppose on the principle of it being against its intended artistic representation". That is not a rationale based in Wikipedia WP:P&G or in the majority of reliable independent sources, it's just a "WP policy is wrong and I will fight it forever" WP:POV / WP:BATTLEGROUND / WP:GREATWRONGS stance. You are going to have to get used to the fact that WP, like all other professional-grade publications, has a house style and will impose it on content written in this house, including to names of things. It's a fact and it's not going to change because someone's artistic sensibilities disagree. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  But it’s spelled wrong. Count3D (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Doesn't seem to be an exception any of the pertinent guidlines. Primergrey (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Sunn O))) et al. over again. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 14:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Episode descriptions are OK in length.

After watching the series, reading the episode descriptions, comparing them to the episode descriptions of other TV series, I find them acceptable in length and content. While some series have shorter descriptions, there are many with similar length. I find more correct details an advantage over less and sometimes less accurate information.

--Bmoshier (talk) 05:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Character descriptions are whack

Character summaries are almost entirely about the characters Holons and the Holon upgrades, with few facts about them as characters tacked on and the start and the end of overly detailed Holon descriptions. Individual Holon info should be isolated in seperate paragraphs under character names. 49.185.201.117 (talk) 09:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any better sources on reception we could add?

The current reviews posted seem to indicate a positive response, but they both came out at the start of the season and only cover the initial episodes, they're more properly previews than full reviews. Actual fan response seems to have plummeted (IMDB ratings fell like a stone, ditto RT audience score), but I don't know if any articles talked about the pretty negative fan reaction. Or, well, articles that came out after the show at all, it really seems like interest left quickly. ZeroSD (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]