Misplaced Pages

talk:Naming conventions (television): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:04, 1 November 2006 editShannernanner (talk | contribs)5,172 edits →I'm confused: reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:55, 3 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,502 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 18) (botTag: Replaced 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes|WT:TV-NC|WT:NC-TV|WT:TV-NAME}}
{{Archive box|* ] - June 2003 &ndash; August 2004<br />
{{WikiProject banner shell|
* ] - August 2004 &ndash; September 2005<br />
{{WikiProject Television}}
* ] - September 2005 &ndash; May 2006
}}
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television/Navigation}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 18
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
----
==How do I name this?==
If I'm going to write an article on a Korean variety show, how would I name it (it's called "X-Man", so I need a descriptor after it)? It's not exactly a serial, but would ] work? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:] seems good. There would likely be confusing with X-Man (TV show), so I would go with (variety show) instead. -- ] 05:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

==Related discussion==

There is currently a discussion at ], about the best way to consistently title ''Lost'' episodes (such as to use a suffix of "(Lost)" or "(Lost episode)"). Interested editors are invited to participate, to ensure consensus. --] 23:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

== Episode naming, again! ==

I'm a bit confused over episode naming. I have seen both ''Episode-name (Show-name)'' and ''Episode-name (Show-name episode)'' used. General naming convention is to describe WHAT the item is, not where it is from - for example, ''(actor)'' and ''(politician)'' would be preferred for diambiguating two names, and if there were more than one politician, then ''(Australian politician)'' and ''(Canadian politician)'' would be preferred. using ''(Australia)'' and ''(Canada)'' would be wrong using this method.

I would have expected television episodes naming conventions to be a subset of the general naming conventions - and as such use ''(Lost episode)'' and ''(Jericho episode)'' for example. I have seen a few articles using just ''(Lost)'' which is wrong - the word "Lost" by itself doesn't do anything to tell you what the article is about, unless you already know that it is an episode of the show. Looking deeper I have found that ] for WikiProject Television episodes!

Trying to find past discussion about this is tricky, I've found info scattered over ], ], ], ], ], and the associated talk pages. I'm not sure where I should bring it up, but the episode naming convention should be "(''Show name'' episode)" - it is after all a part of Misplaced Pages and where possible different projects should not have different naming schemes.

Note: Whether or not episode article names should be pre-emptively disambiguated is another topic altogether! -- ] 02:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

:Sounds like a reasonable rational to me, I agree. -- ] 03:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

== Requesting comments for Lost episodes ==

Requesting comments for ] - a debate over the use of disambiguation titles for episode articles of a TV show when no disambiguation is needed. -- ] 21:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
: Please note that this is the same discussion as was already pointed to, two sections up. --] 23:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
::Same discussion, but it was originally noted for (Lost) vs (Lost episode) instead of where the current discussion is at. -- ] 00:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

== Star Trek example ==

Since it's being discussed on ] I thought it would be good to note this here as well. Here is the reason the Star Trek "exception example" was removed from the guidelines:

To use a disambig title when it is not necessary, for style or consistency reasons seem to be against general ]. For example, one should title the ] episode "''Fire + Water''" as ] instead of ], where "Fire + Water" doesn't exist as another article. Here are some discussions that seem to support this: ], ], ]. One exception was given for this without explanation, Star Trek episodes.

I've been trying to find out how the Star Trek example got in the guideline in the first place, and I've seen it in. The talk page at that time did not have any mentioning of Star Trek, nor did the ] that was taken a few days before. I found two places in the talk archive where Star Trek is mentioned:

*] - about a non-episode Star Trek article where it was preferred to use a non-disambig title when it was not needed.

*] - which does talk about episode articles and the use of disambig titles, but ironically was being used as an example of articles that don't disambig when not needed.

Had there been at least ''something'' that lead to this addition I would have likely discussed first before removing, but there was not. There is no major support for this, and it's very misleading. The inclusion of the Star Trek example is what mislead me to my own assumption that this was acceptable. If we have an exception in a guideline then the exception needs some explanation, some context. The Star Trek example has none, and its removal was appropriate. -- ] 00:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

: I oppose your removing the information from the guideline (especially while you were involved in an active controversy about this in another part of Misplaced Pages). The information was useful, to show that there are multiple ways that episode titles can be handled. The Star Trek exception clearly affects hundreds of articles, as can be seen at ]. It's worth mentioning. --] 02:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

::I originally removed it long before we were in a dispute. Being in dispute alone is not a reason to keep a bad note that conflicts with other guidelines on naming conventions. It clearly has affected a lot of articles, and because of it we have a lot of cleanup to do. It's best not to make the job any bigger. -- ] 03:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

::: You removed it, without discussion, concurrent with the dispute at ] about a page move, even though that wording had been in place for months. Further, every time different wording was suggested, you simply reverted it without discussion. , and then in a display of profoundly bad faith, you then insisted that your version was "consensus", and that discussion was needed to ''restore'' the information that you had removed. .For the record, this is my current recommendation of what should (re)-added to the Guideline page, in the section under "Episode articles":
:::<blockquote>''Certain shows such as ] and ] may use different formats. When in doubt, it is best to make new episode articles consistent with the practice that is already in existence for that program.''
</blockquote>
::: I would also point you to ], which says, "''Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.''". --] 20:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

::::I did remove it without discussion, because it was added without discussion, and you were trying to push an absurd and unjustified exception. Your current recommendation is without sound logic. A bad example is a bad example, no matter how many times you re-word it. Advice that is not easily agreed upon and that has clearly caused confusion is something that should be removed. Even if the example is allowed, the way the information was being presented clearly wasn't helpful. It provided no context, had no explanation whatsoever, and there was no "consensus" to include it. Just because no one noticed it for a while doesn't mean it gained consensus. It's not much different than removing unsourced text from an article, because there's nothing backing this example. -- ] 06:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

== RfC Episode Article Naming conventions ==

I am starting this as there is already four discussions on this page regaurding this issue, also It has come up on ] and ] and though I'm not involved I understand from this page that the debate is also raging (poetic license) on ]. I am going to try to detail the options as I see it and then give my recomendation.
*<small>The current debate on the Lost articles is actually on ], for anyone who's interested. -- ] 20:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC) </small>

'''Summary of the issue'''

Currently there is a bit of confusion since ] says that the first article with a given name should be just that name. However in specific to episodic television episode articles, ] says to reference the guidlines at ]. Since the project guidlines aren't specific every one seems to be pushing for their own preffered version of NC. This RfC seeks to define a single NC for Television Episode articles.

--<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">] | ] | ] | </span></small> 14:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

===Potential Guidelines===

#'''Use the existing naming convention from ] and ] ("Disambiguate only when necessary")'''
#: Example: ], ], ], ]
#'''Articles should be named <EpTitle> (NameOfSeries)'''
#: Example: ]
#'''Articles should be named <EpTitle> (NameOfSeries episode)'''
#: Example: ]

====Notification====
I created <nowiki>{{User:Argash/TVEpNCRfC}}</nowiki> for placement on appropriate talk pages. Feel free to put on talk pages where you deem appropriate to direct people to this discussion.

===Poll===

Sign to indicate which options you agree with.

====Poll Question 1: Disambiguate episode article titles only when necessary====
=====Support=====
A "support" vote means the disambiguation policy for television episode articles should be the same as the general policy: a title only should contain a parenthetical disambiguation if the title is ambiguous, and there are other articles with the same title.

#'''Support'''. ] (] | ]) 19:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' ] 21:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' —] (]) 22:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' —] <small>(] • ])</small> 22:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' ] 23:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' --] (] • ]) 23:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' --] 00:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' -- ] 02:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' ] 02:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' ]; ]. 03:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' ] 03:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Izhmal (] | ]) 03:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' ···]<sup>] · <small>] <font color="darkblue">to</font> ]]o]</small></sup> 03:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Just the episode name, then X (Y), then X (Y episode), if a previous version is taken. KISS - ] 04:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. -- ] 05:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' and use ''(NameOfSeries episode)'' if required -- ] 07:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' we should consistently apply rules, not seek consistency by breaking them. -- ] 10:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' -- ] 13:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strong Support'''--]]<sup>]</sup> 16:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' don't use disambiguation unless the majority of articles in the series already require it. (i.e. don't just slap disambiguation onto every episode article of a series for consistency. But if the majority of episode articles already have disambiguation because they ''need'' it, then putting putting disambiguation on the remaining minority may be acceptable.) --] 05:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

=====Oppose=====
An "oppose" vote means the disambiguation policy for television episode articles should be an exception as the general policy: a television episode's article title should always include the name of the series it is in, regardless of whether or not the episode title is ambiguous.

# '''Strongly oppose''' <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/] ] ]</font></small> 23:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''': I prefer using a single, unified format for all episode titles, as indicated below. And FWIW, I ''don't'' have the luxury of checking WP many times per day, so try not to rush things. - ] → ]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 03:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''': I like the person above me would like a single unified format as it looks better, and shows that they are part of a seires. - ] 07:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

====Poll Question 2: Format of the disambiguation title ====
This section of the poll is regarding what form parenthetical disambiguations for television episodes should take. This is for all parenthetical disambiguations for television episodes, regardless of whether all episodes have parenthetical disambiguations, or only those which are ambiguous.

=====(NameOfSeries) =====
#'''Support''' --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">] | ] | ] |</span></small> 14:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' --] 20:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' 20:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC) <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
#'''Support''' -] 03:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' (based on recent clarification); that is, if disambiguation is necessary, use (NameOfSeries) unless that is itself ambiguous (e.g. ], because ] might be ambiguous). —] <small>(] • ])</small> 16:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', per Josiah Rowe; when/if necessary, use this form of disambiguation. I did think about this for quite a while; the ] section recommends using the simpler disambig when choosing between "disambiguating with a generic class or with a context." ] 16:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' when disambiguation is necessary, use this short and simple add-on. Adding the word episode only helps when there is another conflict, such as an episode being named after a character. ] 18:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

=====(NameOfSeries episode)=====
# '''Support''' --] 20:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
# '''Support''' <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/] ] ]</font></small> 20:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
# '''Support''' - ] → ]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 21:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
# '''Support''' - There are several episodes which are named after a character, place, event etc. even within that fictional universe, therefore appending 'episode' makes it clear it's an article about an episode, not the place, character etc. ] 22:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
# '''Support''' --] 22:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
# '''Support''' per Marky1981 --]]] 22:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
# '''Support'''--] 23:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
# '''Support''' --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">] | ] | ] | </span></small> 00:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' --] 02:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Somewhat support''' I don't feel strongly about this, but if I had to make a choice it would be to include the word episode. -- ] 02:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' ] 18:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC) In general I prefer generic nouns over fields as disambiguator
#'''Support''' Now, are the poll questions going to actually stay the same this time? :P To clarify - disambig only when necessary, and when necessary, use "(NameOfSeries episode)" -- ] 07:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

=====Don't specify a standard format=====
Instead, use the shortest unambiguous form

===Further comments===

I guess now that I have summed up the issue I will note that the option that I prefer is the second as it's unifying, descriptive and not overly wordy.

Obviously this is not an exhaustive list of pros v cons but it should be enough to get an idea and debate the issue. I will be posting this to ] and hopefully we can come to a concensus and make a unifying standard.

--<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">] | ] | ] | </span></small> 14:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:There is also a discussion about this at ], <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/] ] ]</font></small> 14:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

::I've done what I can to clean it up. Let's hope something good comes out of this. ] (] | ]) 19:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This RfC is a bit confusing. For one, the discussion over the Lost episodes is happening on ] and not the other Lost talk page. Also, on the Lost discussion we're mostly talking about the use of disambig titles ("Showtitle (Lost whatever)") when no disambig title is needed. However, the 3 "vote" options presented don't allow for someone to say if they prefer "(Show Name episode)" or "(Show Name)" ''without'' needless disambiguation. Can we change the wording on this and the options before people get too far into this so there's less confusion? Also, it'd be nice if we could transclude some of the comments from that Lost talk page to here, as I'd hate to bug everyone again for a ''second'' comment. -- ] 20:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
:That's a good point, Ned. I wonder if we actually need to take two votes here: one to determine whether episodes should always have the parenthetical disambiguation suffix or should only include when necessary, and one to determine whether that suffix should be "(ShowName)" or "(ShowName episode)" or something else.
:Regarding the first point (whether to disambiguate always, or only when necessary): I would normally be quick to go with the universal standard, but the fact of the matter is that episode titles are actually pretty rarely used in day-to-day discussions. I mean, if I were to say to my co-worker, "Hey, did you see 'Static' last night?" he wouldn't know that I was referring to last night's episode of ]. I agree that Misplaced Pages articles should be named with the simplest, clearest title possible, and that we should only add disambiguation when necessary. But "simplest and clearest" doesn't always mean "shortest." In this case, I think adding the disambiguation is actually simpler and clearer than not adding it.--] 20:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
::Not sure who added the previous comment, I'll dig through the history later and find it but I agree with your first point as I would most deffinately vote for either 2 or 3 before option one. And I do agree with Ned as well. The main reason I posted the discussion here was because it was spread across so many shows. I will through together a notice later tonight that we can throw up on talk pages to let people know that this discussion is here. --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">] | ] | ] | </span></small> 00:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
::A lot of films aren't recognizable in the mainstream, but I don't think they all need to be appended with "(film)." I think if the current guideline is sufficient; if ambiguous, they should be appended with the showname in parentheses, otherwise they should not. ] 21:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
:::I think using films is a bad analogy here as films are singular where as it's not uncommon for a tv series to have 100-200 episodes or more. --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">] | ] | ] | </span></small> 00:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:I actually experienced this myself moments ago... Matthew referred to ] above and it wasn't until visiting the page that I realized it was even a television episode, let alone one from ]. And I was reading a comment ''about television episodes.'' Sure, a large part of that may be due to my own daftness... --] 20:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not real useful to have the same subject being discussed at multiple places. There's no way this "vote" can be considered binding unless people in the other discussions are notified as well. I only stumbled on this by looking at other people's contributions. That notwithstanding, can someone please explain this supposed watchlist benefit to number 2 above? Are there people that are watching pages but don't want to fix vandalism in them because they're not related to Lost?! Please tell me that's not the case. If an article is in your watchlist, you should look for vandalism in edits to that article, regardless of the article's subject - and certainly regardless of that article's naming convention! —] (]) 22:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

: (edit conflict) It's actually not a primary consideration, but for me, I do a ''lot'' of work on Misplaced Pages, and routinely have about 2,000 articles on my watchlist at any one time, even with constant pruning. If I have time, yes, it's nice to be able to go through and check the most recent change on every single article I'm watching. More often, however, I'm just on Misplaced Pages for a few minutes, so I like to focus on the ''Lost'' articles, since I'm very familiar with that subject matter right now. Also, to be honest, the changes to the ''Lost'' episode articles are more likely to need patrolling for vandalism or original research than many of the others on my list. However, I don't have every single episode title memorized, and many of the episode titles don't ''look'' like episode titles (like ] or ]). So having the additional suffix makes them easier to spot in my watchlist. And again, it's not a major issue with me, but it is still something that's helpful, which is why I added it to the "Pro" section. :) --] 23:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

::Just FYI, you can get a watchlist for just Lost episodes if you bookmark this link: . ] 23:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
::I have to agree with you on this point as well --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">] | ] | ] | </span></small> 00:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Preemptive disambiguation has always been and continues to be a bad idea. Article titles should consist only of the ''titles'' of ''articles''. In some cases, this policy doesn't work because some things have the same title. In those cases, as a last resort, we disambiguate the title using a parenthetical disambiguation. Parenthetical disambiguations are ''bad thing'', to be avoided unless absolutely necessary. We should not be implementing policies that change article titles to generic information containers that contain titles and any other random grab-bag of information, like the name of the series it is a part of, or whatever. It's a muddy semantic mess that would only cause worse semantic muddying elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Once we put "(Star Trek episode)" (or whatever) in the title of every Star Trek episode, why not put "(Star Trek character)" after every character or "(2005 novel)" after every novel written last year or "(person who graduated college)" in the title of every article about college graduates, and so on? Star Trek episodes are not special and there is no compelling reason why they should have special exemption to the general policy of only disambiguating when disambiguation is necessary. While it may provide a small benefit in remembering link names for those users who exclusively edit articles relating to Star Trek, for the rest of us, who are just as likely to link to a Star Trek episode as any other article, having a policy of preemptive disambiguation for Star Trek articles is just another dumb exception that has to be memorized and makes Misplaced Pages less consistent overall. ] 23:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
:I agree, well stated. ] 23:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
::Imo it has evolved into more then being just "disambig." <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/] ] ]</font></small> 23:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
:I completely disagree with you in this case. Normally yes preemtive disambig would not be advisable (i.e. 2005 novel, film, etc) but in this case i think the pro's far out weigh the cons. --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">] | ] | ] | </span></small> 00:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Sorry, are you saying that disambiguation isn't disambiguation?

:::I think that the summary doesn't quite do justice to the first option. The current guideline isn't "first come, first served"; it's "disambiguate only when necessary". Specifically, it's "disambiguate only when there would be confusion if you didn't." True, it's not readily apparent that ] is about an episode of ''The 4400''; but then, it's not readily apparent that ] is an Agatha Christie mystery — until you click on the link. We don't title that page ], because there's nothing else that would claim that title. Similarly, unless there's another article that could be titled ], we shouldn't title the article ].

:::I'm also confused by the obsession that some editors have with "consistency". Why should we fetishize the names of articles? In any article related to the television series, an episode's name will be piped anyway. It's only in a category that people will see that some articles have the suffix and some do not. Do ] and the other daughter categories of ] look less "professional" because the Doctor Who WikiProject follows standard Misplaced Pages practice? For that matter, does ] look less "professional" because some articles have the (novel) suffix and some do not? —] <small>(] • ])</small> 00:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
::::Again, well stated, I agree. ] 00:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::The point I was trying to make above is that televisions episodes are exceptional in that the episode titles are not usually known by anyone except avid fans of the series. I agree that it would be silly to use ], because that book is generally referred to, and thought of, as "''The Man in the Brown Suit''," and not "Christie's 1924 novel" or "The one she wrote after ''Murder on the Links.''" TV episodes, on the other hand, are only known to most people as "last night's ''Heroes'' episode" or "the ''E.R.'' fifth season finale." I have become a pretty avid fan of ], but I'd be hard pressed to give you the names of ''any'' of the episodes without looking at the episode list.
:::::Because the most official name for a television episode is also the least-known and least-used, I think an exception to the Misplaced Pages standard is justified. --] 00:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::By the way, Josiah, I agree with you in that there is nothing ''unprofessional'' about leaving off the disambiguation. I think it has more to do with ease-of-use than professionalism. --] 00:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::Fair enough; I'm just not convinced that there is a significant ease-of-use advantage in adding a suffix every time.

::::::I also think that there are probably plenty of casual readers of Agatha Christie novels who might think of, say, '']'' as "the one set in Jerusalem". I don't see that as an argument for moving that page to ]. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 01:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you guys not pick two options? Seriously, it sets a bad example and it just attempt to have it "one way or the other". Should the two propositions just be merged? ] (] | ]) 00:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

: (edit conflict) My own feeling is that it's a bad idea to pick one and only one way of doing with it, and then trying to force that one method on every episode article for every series. I think that for some series, using the suffixes is a good idea, and for others, the "only in cases of disambiguation" works well. But some others appear to disagree and want to insist that there should be only one method of handling it. Maybe we should add a "Flexibility" option to the above poll? Then we could a sentence like this to the guidelines: ''Certain shows such as ] and ] may use different formats. When in doubt, it is best to make new episode articles consistent with the practice that is already in existence for that program.'' --] 00:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Nohat, I am ] regarding your additions to the pros and cons above, but many of them seem (to me, anyway) to be somewhat redundant and some are a little flippant. I invite you to consolidate your arguments a little to more accurately represent the different sides of this issue. Thank you! --] 00:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:Well, there are major advantages and disadvantages and minor advantages and disadvantages. Since many of the existing entries seemed to me to be extremely minor, it seemed reasonable to just make the lists as exhaustive as possible and let readers decide for themselves the significance each pro and con. As for whether any are ''redundant'', I don't think any of my additions are; they all occurred to me as distinct advantages or disadvantages, although the distinction in some cases is somewhat subtle. Perhaps some related but subtly distinct pros and cons could be combined into single bullet points, but aren't we splitting hairs enough? ] 00:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:My view (as someone who is very peripheral to this discussion, on which I don't have immensely strong feelings) is that people are using the "Pro" and "Con" statements above to implicitly argue for their bias, rather than present a neutral laying out of various approaches. The statements seem overwhelmingly slanted towards Option 1, in other words. I find this objectionable as a debating style, frankly, and it makes me wonder why people feel they need to stack the deck in this manner. -- ] 00:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

::Fine, I removed everything but the options. Now, can get back to what's importante?

::Elonka, no. Whatever the ultimate fallout is, a clear policy needs to be set, no exceptions. And I was talking about votes. People voting for guidelines two and three, specifically. We might as well merge them for now if people are just going to vote for both ] (] | ]) 00:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:::I would be OK with merging options 2 and 3 for now and then doing a sperate poll if that option prevails. --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">] | ] | ] | </span></small> 00:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I think the removal may have been a bit hasty. There were some valid points on both sides that people should take into consideration. Please consider restoring the information, perhaps putting it in a slightly different context. ] 00:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

::I rephrased the characterization of the existing policy from "first come first served" to "disambiguate only when necessary". I think that's a more accurate description. Whether the pros and cons are kept or not, I hope this can be retained. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 00:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Not to start anything but alot of the pros/cons that were added were just restating ] and ] --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">] | ] | ] | </span></small> 00:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think there are two arguments here that should be discussed separately:

# Should article titles for television episodes use parenthetical disambiguations in all cases, or only when the article title is ambiguous?
# When television article titles use parenthetical disambiguations (that is, regardless of which option is picked for choice 1), should the format of the parenthetical disambiguation be (SeriesName) or (SeriesName episode)?

The two questions are completely orthogonal, and the current format of the poll conflates them. ] 00:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

: For now, I think we should stick with the poll as it's structured, rather than making quick course changes. I see a lot of commentary here from people (including myself) who have the luxury of being able to check Misplaced Pages multiple times per day. But as I'm sure we all know, many Misplaced Pages editors who might like to offer an opinion, haven't even seen the poll yet. So I recommend letting it run for a few days, and give everyone a chance to weigh in. Meanwhile, we can also discuss proper wording for another poll, if one becomes necessary. Remember, ]. We're not here for a "majority rules" option, we're here to try and have a good faith discussion, and see if we can find a consensus. For example, along with the "do it or don't do it" options, I still think it's worthwhile to discuss the "It depends" option, to allow flexibility in the titling systems for different television programs. --] 01:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


I've updated the poll format a bit so people can state a preference for disabig titles '''and''' indicate support or oppose for disabig only when necessary. Those who wish to oppose the latter will need to re-sign under the new section. Sorry for the late change, but I did sort of suggest this early on (and then had to go to work). -- ] 02:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this discussion could benefit from the ]. Adding disambiguation when unnecessary just complicates things. If "Title" is redirecting to "Title (disambiguation)" the page always gets moved. Any argument that a particular type of article is an exception puts too much emphasis on trivia, which we also like to avoid. ] 03:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the stupid votes for multiple policies and "opposition". Let's be clear: you cannot vote for two things, period. One or the other. By voting for one thing, you're voting against the other. Pick an option and stick with it. Double votes for dabbing and no dabing have been removed. If the voters really care, they can re-add '''ONE''' vote to '''ONE''' choice and no more. Honestly.... ] (] | ]) 07:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:I've reverted your edits. You clearly misunderstand the situation. There are two '''different''' things being polled here. If you took the time to read the discussion you would see that. -- ] 08:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

====A question====
Just a quick question for those who are supporting sticking with the current policy. Are you voting that way simply because it's the current policy? Not to be rude I just haven't seen anyone give a good and valid reason as to why they prefer that. Mostly what I've seen from your group is "Thats the policy why change it?" I'm really curious to know. --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">] | ] | ] | Status:{{User:Argash/status}}</span></small> 09:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:] has a lot of that discussion. -- ] 09:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:I don't know what you mean; see Josiah Rowe and Nohat's reasonings, for example. ] 09:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
::Other than saying they dont want to change the current practice the only thing I've seen them ask is do the categories look less professional because some have the suffix and some don't. I would answer yes they do but that isn't the point. the point that I (and I think most of the others) am trying to make is that the suffix adds much needed context to the article title. --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">] | ] | ]</span></small> 10:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Then I don't believe you've read them; here are the diffs (, ). ] 10:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
::::I read them, and all they seem to say (as far as I can tell) is regurgitate the existing policy. The only unique statement I see was this '''I'm also confused by the obsession that some editors have with "consistency". Why should we fetishize the names of articles? In any article related to the television series, an episode's name will be piped anyway.''' To which I would say we aren't obsessed, we just want consistency across large swaths of articles. The novel argument or character argument just doesn't wash with me. Where you might have a handful of characters in a series or novels in a trilogy or series, a TV show might have 100-200 episodes through out its run (and don't get me started on Dr. Who). I guess what I'm asking is why do you think it's so wrong to preemptively tag these large chunks of articles? Why do you think it's so wrong to be consistent across these large number of articles? --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">] | ] | ]</span></small> 11:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::It's wrong because it's pointless and has no end. The most prominent reason on the disambiguate-always side seems to be that Lost episode articles will be easier to find in Elonka's 2,000-item watchlist! By that logic, I should tag ] and ] with (New York Mets player) because I'm a New York Mets fan. What a terrible reason. The name of episode articles is pretty trivial anyway since no one knows episodes by name - they'll only be able to find the episodes by scanning through lists with season numbers and summaries - and then the piped links will make the inconsistency invisible anyway. I'm still waiting for a decent reason for pre-emptive disambiguation in any case, let alone among Lost episode articles. —] (]) 12:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:I prefer the current guideline because it's a good guideline. I haven't seen too many say they like the current convention ''solely'' because it's the current guideline so I don't know why you say that. I disagree that there's some level of "professionalism" gained by adding a word in parentheses to only this group of articles. Among other things, this opens the door to add (whatever) to every article title. The same reasoning applies almost anywhere - I'll add (baseball player) to every baseball bio, and (nation) to every nation article and (plant species) to every plant species article. What's the point to any of those? It doesn't make any of them look more "professional" and only makes life (very slightly) easier for editors, not readers. I like the term "fetishism" that someone is using here to describe making the article names fit the same pattern because that seems to be the only motivator here. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Category:Living_people&from=Smith - should we add some common disambiguator to all of the living Smith articles just because all of the article titles on that screen don't match? Of course not. —] (]) 11:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
::If people are seeing the most prominent reason to "disambiguate" (I'll explain the quotes in a minute) as being the improvement of Elonka's formidable watchlist, then I think at least one argument is being overlooked. In my mind, the most prominent reason to do it is because '''episode titles alone are not complete or dependable identifiers of television episodes.''' Some TV series (], ]) don't even display the titles as part of the episode at all. If you read a novel where each chapter was marked with only a number ("Chapter 1," "Chapter 2," and so on), would it be intuitive to have research on those chapters listed under the names that the author might have used but didn't actually include in the book?
::That being said, I wonder if part of the issue here is semantics: the proposal is to somehow put the series name in a parenthesis after the episode title, something that is otherwise used in Misplaced Pages to indicate disambiguation. But I'm not sure that disambiguation is people are looking for here (which is why I put it in quotes above). ] seems to better illustrate what ''I'm'' thinking of, but of course that's hopelessly unwieldly for an article name. Is there better way to identify episodes as being "chapters in a series" than by using the system normally used for disambiguation? --] 15:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
::::Toby, this is a noteworthy point, and it leads to the question of whether it is necessary to provide this context in the name of an article. Any link to a specific episode of a television series should provide enough context for a reader to know that they're going to an article about an episode. The job of an article title ''isn't'' to provide context for those who don't know what the subject is — the article does that. If I came upon a contextless link to, say ] (a page I found by hitting "random article" a few times), I would have no idea what that was. But if I see a link to Adios Butler in a list of pacing horses on ], then I'll know that Adios Butler is a horse. My ignorance of the subject of horse racing is not a justification for renaming that article ].

::::The mere fact that most people who watch television don't take note of episodes' names does not mean that Misplaced Pages needs to provide that context in an article's title. I'd expect that if someone wanted to find an article on a particular episode of ''Lost'', they'd probably go first to ], thence to ], thence to ], where they'll find the episode they're interested in. At no point in that process does it matter whether the episode is titled ] or ]. So the fact that most television viewers don't know episode names is really irrelevant to the question of Misplaced Pages's naming conventions. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:::The same point still holds though. If someone mentions Fred Clarke, not too many people will know who that is. Is that a reason to name his article, "Fred Clarke, Hall of Fame Major League baseball player"? I don't think so. The only people that are likely to ever find the Jericho episode article you mention are people who are looking for Jericho episode articles - whether it's disambiguated or not. If I click on The Four Horseman and it turns out to be a Jericho episode article, so what? I'll figure it out after the first sentence (assuming it follows ], ] and ] as it should). —] (]) 15:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:::: If we, as Wikipedians, decide that individual television episodes are notable enough to have their own articles, then they are ''prima facie'' notable enough to stand alone on their titles. TV episode titles are not qualitatively more obscure and in need of contextualization than any other group of relatively obscure things, like ], ], or ]. The things in those groups don't need preemptive disambiguation, and neither do TV episodes. ] 18:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::Excellent point, Nohat. --] 18:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Nohat and Wknight94 have explained the "keep it as is" position fairly well, but just for the record I'll add my reasons. I ''do'' support the existing policy, because it's a good policy. An article should have the shortest name that identifies its subject clearly, and without ambiguity. As TobyRush points out, parenthetical suffixes on Misplaced Pages exist to resolve ambiguity between titles, not to provide context for an article's subject. The ''article'' does that, ideally in its first line.

I don't think that it's "wrong" to be consistent — I just don't think that ''context-providing'' consistency is a value that needs to be taken into account in article naming. I do feel that the example of ] is relevant — only the devotees of a particular author will recognize the titles of all of her works. Many of them are works in a series, not unlike the episodes of a television series. It's ''exactly'' parallel to the television example: if we must label ] as ], then by the same reasoning we should label ] as ]. I really don't see the difference. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:To be fair, though, I don't think it's ''exactly'' parallel; the ''most commonly used identifier'' for a novel is more often its title, whereas the ''most commonly used identifier'' for a television episode is something along the lines of "that one episode of where...". If we're looking for something analogous to "episode X of series Y", I think it's somewhere inbetween "novel X of author Y" and "chapter X of novel Y." It seems to me that someone who reads Agatha Christie novels, whether a "devotee" or simply a fan of fiction in general, is going to know the books by their names. But my brother-in-law, who can quote entire episodes of ] verbatim, can't tell you the episode names for any of them.
:However, finding an exact analogy is going to be impossible because it's going to vary wildly within any category, television episodes included. My point is that television episodes represent a unique situation, and that as such it's worth exploring whether or not they warrant an exception to the general rule. In that regard, though, your point (the first line should provide the necessary context) and Nohat's point (if an episode has its own article, it's independent enough to be identified by the episode title) are absolutely correct. --] 19:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I also support the existing policy, not because it's the one that exists, but because it is a good, well thought out, policy. I mentioned the ] above as to why the existing policy is good. Not using disambiguation is always the simplest thing to do, it just isn't always possible because of ambiguity. When ambiguity complicates things anyway, using a longer title is actually useful, but the longer title should still be the simplest one possible. The first time I read the policy I thought, "Well, that makes sense." which is why I used it when naming articles from ]. Those articles may not be very good yet, but they all have the simplest name they can, and I've had no trouble keeping track of them in my watchlist even when they don't say (Xiaolin Showdown) after them. ] 19:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


__TOC__
: My position in support of suffixes is this:
:*In the case of ''Lost'', the majority of the episodes already have the suffix, since the show creators like to re-use specific phrases, so it makes sense to add suffixes to the minority of episodes that don't have it, in order to keep a consistent look and feel.
:*By the nature of the show, the episode articles are highly interlinked, and we frequently have to link to multiple different episodes within each article, so it makes sense to use a consistent titling scheme for ease of editing, rather than constantly having to check to see which episode has the suffix, and which one doesn't.
:*Ease of navigation for the average reader: If they are stepping through articles with the navigation box, I think it looks odd to see that most of the episodes ''do'' use the suffix, but some do not. Most of our casual readers are going to be oblivious to the subtleties of disambiguation, so I don't think it's an issue for them. The method of only adding suffixes to episode titles that absolutely need it for disambiguation, ends up looking "random" to most people, resulting in a look that is unprofessional and confusing.
:* Another advantage to including suffixes, is the watchlist issue, though I will repeat again that this is ''not'' my primary motivation, it's just an added benefit, to quickly be able to identify which items in my watchlist are ''Lost'' episodes.
:* With consistent suffixes, the category listing looks cleaner, rather than being an apparent hodgepodge of episodes with and without suffixes, which frankly looks like an error: ].
:And lastly, I continue to be bewildered as to why people feel it's so necessary to make a strong stand on this "no suffix" point. I honestly don't see that there would be any major negative impact on Misplaced Pages by allowing all of the episodes of a particular television show, such as ''Lost'', to use a consistent titling system. The ''Star Trek'' episodes in ] have been using consistent suffixes in a stable manner for a long time, and I haven't seen any indication that this causes mass confusion. To my mind, the ''Star Trek'' episode articles and related categories look clean, consistent, and professional. Further, if someone were to go through and attack the ''Star Trek'' system by insisting on moving episodes to different non-suffix titles simply because of an obsessive need to "enforce" a guideline that isn't even policy, I would see that as disruptive, and in violation of ]. --] 21:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:::You're still simply calling the current guideline obsessive while using arguments for your viewpoint which frankly sound obsessive. You're saying you want consistency across Lost episode titles while simultaneously saying consistency across different TV episode conventions (Lost vs. Simpsons, etc.) is not important. Your first, third and fifth points above are almost identical - going towards some sort of lack of professionalism which I just can't buy at all (I can't see how any reader would care that some of the articles have (Lost episode) after them and some don't). Your second point goes just as much for most other subjects (I know I'm repeating myself but do you think I write an article about a baseball player without ever referencing any of his teammates or opponents? Should I put (baseball player) on the end of each one just in case two of them are named Smith and Jones and would need disambiguation?). The watchlist issue can be solved easily - prune your watchlist if you only want to maintain certain articles. —] (]) 21:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
::::BTW, I actually find disambiguated titles helpful - and using them arbitrarily would completely diffuse that helpfulness. Disambiguated titles are an instant indicator that there are other articles and subjects which are similar and lets me - as a reader - simply remove the (whatever) part of the title and quickly see what other articles are named similarly. In the case of Lost episodes, it would be a quick way to find what the episode name is referring to. When I run across an instance where the article without the (whatever) just redirects back to the article ''with'' (whatever), that's obnoxious to me! For an inexperienced user who isn't familiar with redirects, that could send them into a very frustrating circular loop. "I remove the (whatever) and I just keep coming to the article with the (whatever)!" Talk about unprofessional... it almost looks like a bug in the system. —] (]) 22:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


== ] ==
:::::Exactly, Wiki-Knight, and that's one of my points, frankly. Still, I fear this may not be getting either side very far. I mean, the excessive dabbers can argue for their perceived pros and we can denounce their practices with our perceived cons, but is any side right? Is either side actually acknowledging or diffusing the others' argument? I'm just beginning to wonder if discussion isn't pointless...]; ]. 22:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::Well it's certainly getting repetitive anyway. To me, it would take a very convincing argument to overturn such a longstanding guideline and I'm not hearing anything anywhere near convincing. I can't shake the feeling that this exact argument went on three or four years ago and is how the guideline came to be in the first place - and it will probably be repeated again every so often. Can't wait... :( —] (]) 22:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


Hello, this is a notice that there is currently a requested move at ] in which it is being proposed to move it back to ] to provide further disambiguation from another series with the same title, which is currently located at ]. I have brought up the TV naming conventions and ], although other editors believe differently. Any comments there would be much appreciated! ] (]) 15:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Should one of the disambiguation examples be adopted, there is also the problem of series which are named identically but came out at different times. I can think of only one series this applies to, and that is Battlestar Galactica. Currently, for example, we have ] and ], both using the pre-emptive disambiguation naming convention, except that the former is from the original 1978 series and the latter from the 2004 remake. Only ] is disambiguated any further because that episode title occurs in both versions. My own personal suggestion, beyond eliminating pre-emptive disambiguation, is for the above examples to become, respectively, ] and ]. Note that I am not a big fan of making double parenthethis in article names, which is why I did not put them around the years, but if this is an issue, perhaps a hyphen instead? --] 23:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


== Episode title disambiguations ==
:Either way there's going to be ambiguity. I'd recommend listing all ambiguous titles with the year of the series for clarity. On the unlikely chance that excessive dabbing wins, add the years to them all. ]; ]. 00:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
:Unless the excessive dabbing wins the year should only be added when necessary, because an episodes in both had the same title. The disambiguation is only for Misplaced Pages to have separate file names, it's not for people to search for a particular topic, but separate to similar topics from each other. ] 00:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
::This is another very nice example of why ''not'' to disambiguate unless necessary. When you do, you're just categorizing - and Misplaced Pages already has categorizing functionality. —] (]) 00:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


So this started because of a comic, but the way TV episode articles are formatted was used as justification, but it made me wonder. Why are episode titles supposed to be disambiguated with (''Show Title'') instead of (''Show Title'' episode)? One reason I ask is because I'm pretty sure that specifying ''what'' something actually is instead of just what it's associated with was one of the main reasons for that big change to how articles about TV show seasons are titled earlier this year, wasn't it? Where the parenthesis around the seasons were removed; an example given at the time was something like, ] shouldn't be titled that way because it's not a "season 6" called "The Simpsons", it's season 6 of "The Simpsons". (edit: just saw the discussion is still on this page, see Alex_21's comment from 3 January 2024 )<br>
I see the majory argument for using disambiguation is consistency. On the same principal, having all TV series using the same title format (either disambiguation or no disambiguation) is also very important in terms of consistency. Which means doing massive numbers of moves one way or the other. May as well be no disambiguation because it seems like most TV series do not have the disambiguation.
Yet while that format change proposal was successful, the same reasoning does not seem to be applied to episode titles (or characters apparently, looking further at this page). Going by the same logic behind the seasons proposal, a title like, say, ], would nonsensically suggest the article is about a "The Sopranos" called "College". Now I doubt anyone would actually think that, but then why did season pages need to change to follow that logic? Other types of media seem to also follow this reasoning, like how films are disambiguated with (''year'' film) instead of just (''year''). (edit: some other things like lists split up by year don't follow this trend, but I'm only talking about articles for individual media here.)<br>
I doubt any serious proposal to change this would get much traction, but I'm just wondering what other people think, since it seems like something of a double standard. Or I might just be looking way too hard into it. ] (]) 08:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)


:It would likely be an even bigger undertaking to get this fixed than the season change was, but I agree that the current naming convention doesn't make much sense and is probably more in need of changing than the season articles were. I would support a change to "Episode Title (episode)" as the default disambiguation when there is already an article with the same name, and if there are multiple episodes with the same name then "Episode Title (''Series Title'' episode)". The same should apply to characters and other elements. - ] (]) 08:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Also, can someone change the poll questions around? The way they're formatting now is confusing. The "opposse" sections are not needed. A vote for support in one of the three options shows opposse to the other two. Right now, there're people voting support for more than one option. And some people voting oppose on the two options they don't support, and some people not.
::Any other interest in this? If others think it is a good idea but are unwilling to go through a complicated process of trying to update all the existing episode articles then we could just update the guideline to say either approach is okay for now and let editors move pages as they come across them. - ] (]) 08:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::The season thing was a big undertaking but still got done it looks like. I think your suggestion is better than the way it's done now and I'd be interested in hearing others' opinions on that. But it feels like it's harder to get feedback in talk pages lately for some reason? ] (]) 08:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)


== Allowing disambiguation based on region ==
Have either just three options and people show support for one of the three. Or have two questions, the first addressing whether we need disambiguation. And the second for what type of disambiguation to use (for people who are pro-disambiguation). --] 05:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


Should disambiguating by region (state/province/municipality, etc.) be allowed when disambiguating by year, country or genre is not appropriate?


I recently closed ] about three regional newscasts in the UK, all known as <i>BBC Look North</i>. In this case, the series are all regional programs in the same country, and only adding the years of premiere would be unclear for readers, so consensus was reached to disambiguate by region in the title despite the existing NCTV guidance. Another example is ]'s disambiguation from ].
===Poll changes===
I'm not sure who changed/refactored the poll questions, but I now find that I have my name under an item that I do not wish to vote for. "disambiguate only when necesary, and then disambiguate with ''(SeriesName episode)''" is NOT the same as "disambiguate all with ''(SeriesName episode)''". Of course there have been so many edits and changes to the page since then, I don't want to attempt to change them back and risk doing the same thing to someone else. All I can suggest is everyone CHECK their votes! -- ] 02:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


Should this approach be considered as an acceptable alternative to include in the guideline?<span id="Frostly:1732319071947:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNNaming_conventions_(television)" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 23:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)</span>
:Elonka seems to have been the one to change it . I thought it was clear that we were discussion two separate issues, to disambig only when necessary, and what disambig title to use. I too found myself under as section that said "always add" which is '''NOT''' what I voted for. I've changed the sections back and removed the "oppose" sections because they're redundant to the "support" section of "Disambig only when necessary".


:That sounds acceptable to me if the standard disambiguation options did not adequately define each show. - ] (]) 08:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:Now I know that I did make a change to the poll, but that was after some discussion and the change didn't change the meaning to people's votes. At this point we know what people support, but some who are opposed might have to re-sign under the "oppose" of the first part. This is different than actually changing what a person supports.


== What's a series and what's a program: looking for a clear definition ==
:Are we clear on this are do we have to start over? I'm ''really'' hoping that this is clear now and we can just keep moving forward with collecting information, but if anyone feels strongly enough then we should restart the whole thing. -- ] 05:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


A while ago I started moving a bunch of pages in accord to NCTV, which says series television should be disambiguated as "series" and non-series should be disambiguated as "program" (it's not exactly that, but that's roughly what matters). I was doing these without much knowledge of the guidelines, so I ended up moving a lot of reality TV pages that might have been series. The problem is that 1. I'm not sure if every move was 100% right or wrong and 2. I feel like to move it back I'd have to do a lot of complicated stuff. The rules are a bit confusing, too; the definition of series here is written as "shows made of episodes which may relate part of an unfolding story, feature recurring settings or characters, or express a unifying narrative theme." That makes it look like only fictional shows can be series, but the examples include reality shows and documentaries.
::I'm afraid that I may have added to the confusion in an earlier attempt to clarify things. I thought that the three options were meant to be "disambiguate only as needed", "always add (seriesname)" and "always add (seriesname episode)", and tried to clarify the titles accordingly. I apologize if that was an error. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 06:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


Anyways, the point is that I'm asking for help on what should be called a series and what should be called a program. Here are some pages I moved, categorized by how much I think they're a series:
:::It's definitely '''not''' simple, but here's how I think the poll is supposed to work as it is/was—depending on the edits made after/during this post—at 08:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC): the first part "disambiguate only when necessary" contains support and oppose votes. The "Oppose" stands for the "always disambiguate" votes. Right now, the "oppose" side is not fully represented as the system used to be a list of three separate policies, not two separate debates.


Not a series - ], ], ], other ones I forgot probably
:::Voting for either "<series>" or "<series> ep" does '''not''' mean you're voting to disambiguate always. It's only a vote for which of the two options to use, even if "disambiguate only whe necessary" wins.


''Probably'' not a series (dunno for sure) - ], ]
:::Currently, "dab when necessary" and "<series> ep" are both winning. Should this stay that way, the final result will be to follow the general pre-existing policy and '''always''' identify an article as being an "episode" of a series. ]; ]. 08:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


Probably a series - ], ], ]
::::I went ahead and added clarifiers to the poll itself. I tried to make my descriptions as neutral as possible, but if bias has slipped in, I call on others to fix it. ] 08:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


IDK - ], ], ], ] ] ] 18:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
====I'm confused====
I'm confused now. Have you changed the poll to where if (like me) you favor preemptive dabing I have to ''oppose'' the first option and ''support'' the second option(which ever one I prefer)? If thats the case I think we need to start the voting over and re-inform people, as I'm sure there are lots of people who came in here, made their choice and left nary to return again. Essentially scewing the vote. To be honest I think the poll was started prematurely anyway before the options were fully discussed. --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">] | ] | ]</span></small> 16:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
:I have changed the format very slightly and clarified the headers to try to reduce this confusion. I don't want cause trouble, though, so someone please feel free to revert these changes if you think it's out of line. Once we determine an acceptible format for the poll (I agree, Argash, maybe we started the poll a little soon), I volunteer to help send messages to previous voters, asking them to return and confirm that their opinions are accurately recorded. --] 17:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
::I think it would have been good to clarify a format for the poll and stuck with it, instead of changing it so many times, muddling the consistency of the votes. I believe several of the votes for the disambig appendages are meant as oppose votes for the first option, per the original poll format; it ''would'' be good if the current voters could be notified of the new format. And if the format could stay static now. ] 17:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
:::The last revision before the poll was changed is . Here is a list of everyone who had voted before the poll was changed: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. They should all be notified on their talk pages that the poll has changed slightly and that they should double check their vote to make sure it corresponds to their actual preferences. ] 18:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
::::For whatever reason this didn't occur to me before, but I think that the previous voters who only voted support on the current "first poll" should be notified that they can also vote on the second items (which disambig to use "only when necessary"). ] 19:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:55, 3 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Naming conventions (television) page.
Shortcuts
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconTelevision
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
WikiProject
Television
Project main page
Project discussion
Project assessment talk
Television portal talk
Descendant WikiProjects and task forces
Showcase
Project organization
Article alerts
Deletion sorting
Popular pages
New articles
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Project templates talk
Television stubs
Guidelines
Project manual of style talk
Project notability guidelines talk
TV article naming convention talk
Broadcasting article naming convention talk
Related WikiProjects
Actors and Filmmakers
Albums
Animation
Anime and manga
Comics
Film
Literature
Media franchises
Radio
Screenwriters
Westerns
view · edit · changes

Talk:Hawkeye (TV series)

Hello, this is a notice that there is currently a requested move at Talk:Hawkeye (TV series)#Requested move 28 July 2024 in which it is being proposed to move it back to Hawkeye (1994 TV series) to provide further disambiguation from another series with the same title, which is currently located at Hawkeye (miniseries). I have brought up the TV naming conventions and WP:SMALLDETAILS, although other editors believe differently. Any comments there would be much appreciated! Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Episode title disambiguations

So this started because of a comic, but the way TV episode articles are formatted was used as justification, but it made me wonder. Why are episode titles supposed to be disambiguated with (Show Title) instead of (Show Title episode)? One reason I ask is because I'm pretty sure that specifying what something actually is instead of just what it's associated with was one of the main reasons for that big change to how articles about TV show seasons are titled earlier this year, wasn't it? Where the parenthesis around the seasons were removed; an example given at the time was something like, The Simpsons (season 6) shouldn't be titled that way because it's not a "season 6" called "The Simpsons", it's season 6 of "The Simpsons". (edit: just saw the discussion is still on this page, see Alex_21's comment from 3 January 2024 )
Yet while that format change proposal was successful, the same reasoning does not seem to be applied to episode titles (or characters apparently, looking further at this page). Going by the same logic behind the seasons proposal, a title like, say, College (The Sopranos), would nonsensically suggest the article is about a "The Sopranos" called "College". Now I doubt anyone would actually think that, but then why did season pages need to change to follow that logic? Other types of media seem to also follow this reasoning, like how films are disambiguated with (year film) instead of just (year). (edit: some other things like lists split up by year don't follow this trend, but I'm only talking about articles for individual media here.)
I doubt any serious proposal to change this would get much traction, but I'm just wondering what other people think, since it seems like something of a double standard. Or I might just be looking way too hard into it. Ringtail Raider (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It would likely be an even bigger undertaking to get this fixed than the season change was, but I agree that the current naming convention doesn't make much sense and is probably more in need of changing than the season articles were. I would support a change to "Episode Title (episode)" as the default disambiguation when there is already an article with the same name, and if there are multiple episodes with the same name then "Episode Title (Series Title episode)". The same should apply to characters and other elements. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Any other interest in this? If others think it is a good idea but are unwilling to go through a complicated process of trying to update all the existing episode articles then we could just update the guideline to say either approach is okay for now and let editors move pages as they come across them. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
The season thing was a big undertaking but still got done it looks like. I think your suggestion is better than the way it's done now and I'd be interested in hearing others' opinions on that. But it feels like it's harder to get feedback in talk pages lately for some reason? Ringtail Raider (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Allowing disambiguation based on region

Should disambiguating by region (state/province/municipality, etc.) be allowed when disambiguating by year, country or genre is not appropriate?

I recently closed an RM discussion about three regional newscasts in the UK, all known as BBC Look North. In this case, the series are all regional programs in the same country, and only adding the years of premiere would be unclear for readers, so consensus was reached to disambiguate by region in the title despite the existing NCTV guidance. Another example is Big Brother (Quebec TV series)'s disambiguation from Big Brother Canada.

Should this approach be considered as an acceptable alternative to include in the guideline? — Frostly (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

That sounds acceptable to me if the standard disambiguation options did not adequately define each show. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

What's a series and what's a program: looking for a clear definition

A while ago I started moving a bunch of pages in accord to NCTV, which says series television should be disambiguated as "series" and non-series should be disambiguated as "program" (it's not exactly that, but that's roughly what matters). I was doing these without much knowledge of the guidelines, so I ended up moving a lot of reality TV pages that might have been series. The problem is that 1. I'm not sure if every move was 100% right or wrong and 2. I feel like to move it back I'd have to do a lot of complicated stuff. The rules are a bit confusing, too; the definition of series here is written as "shows made of episodes which may relate part of an unfolding story, feature recurring settings or characters, or express a unifying narrative theme." That makes it look like only fictional shows can be series, but the examples include reality shows and documentaries.

Anyways, the point is that I'm asking for help on what should be called a series and what should be called a program. Here are some pages I moved, categorized by how much I think they're a series:

Not a series - Vitamin, Sponge, Sunday Night, other ones I forgot probably

Probably not a series (dunno for sure) - Hitmaker (2016), Cool Kids

Probably a series - A2K, Dancing with the Stars Korea, Begin Again

IDK - Band of Brothers, Animals, Hitmaker (2014), Roommate Wuju Daisuki 18:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: