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

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:09, 16 November 2006 editYaksha (talk \| contribs)6,342 edits moving some more sections to archieve (page is huge), and clarified my last statement← 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:
	{{~~Shortcut~~\|]}}		{{Talk header\|search=yes\|WT:TV-NC\|WT:NC-TV\|WT:TV-NAME}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|
	{{Archive box\|* ] - June 2003 – August 2004<br />
			{{WikiProject Television}}
	* ] - August 2004 – September 2005<br />
			}}
	* ] - September 2005 – September 2006<br />
			{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television/Navigation}}
	* ] - October–November 2006
			{{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
	}}		}}
	----

	== Other programs not in accordance with this guideline ==

	Milo Minderbinder made a good point above, that there are lots more television series not in compliance with this guideline than just the ''Star Trek'' series. ''Buffy the Vampire Slayer'' and ''Angel'', for instance, seem to follow the ''Star Trek'' model — I only just noticed this when ] came up as a redlink above. While we're dropping polite notes, we should probably drop one at the Buffyverse WikiProject too. Does anyone know what other series are preemptively disambiguating, and whether they have WikiProjects? —] <small>(] • ])</small> 07:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
	:]. -- ] 07:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

	Tons, actually...<br>
	stargate - ] ''(Project informed on 10/11)''<br>
	lost - ]<br>
	star trek - ]<br>
	buffy and angel - ] ''(Project informed on 10/11)''<br>
	4400 - ]<br>
	<s>some mortal combat series - ]</s> ''(done)''<br>

	episodes for these TV series are also in the Star Trek format:<br>
	<s>]</s> ''(done)''<br>
	<s>]</s> ''(done)''<br>
	<s>]</s>''(done)''<br>
	<s>]</s>''(false alarm)<br>
	<s>]</s>''(done)''<br>
	<s>]</s> ''(fixed now)''<br>
	<s>] </s>''(done)'' <br>
	<s>]</s>''(false alarm)''<br>
	<s>]</s>''(done)''<br>
	<s>]</s>''(done)''<br>
	<s>]</s>''(done)''<br>
	<s>] (old series)</s> ''done''<br>
	<s>] (new series)</s>''done''<br>
	<s>]</s> ''Verified'' for episodes which have articles - most episodes do not. --] 00:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC) <br>
	<s>]</s> (done)<br>
	]<br>
	<s>]</s> ''(false alarm, the disambiguation was actually needed on torchwood episodes)''<br>
	]<br>
	]<br>
	]<br>
	]<br>
	<s>]</s> ''done''<br>
	]<br>
	]<br>
	]<br>
	]<br>
	]<br>
	]<br>
	]<br>
	]<br>
	]<br>
	]<br>
	]<br>
	]<br>
	]<br>
	<s>]</s>done<br>
	]<br>
	]<br>
	<s>]</s>done<br>
	]<br>
	<s>]</s>done<br>
	<s>]</s> ''(done)'' --] 00:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)<br>
	]<br>
	]<br>
	]<br>
	]<br>
	]<br>
	]<br>
	<s>]</s>''(done)''<br>
	<s>]<s> ''(done)''<br>
	<s>]</s>''(done)''

	That should be all of it.

	In other words, ''tons'' of article moving if people decide to go through with this. Any volunteers here? --] 11:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
	*Certainly. Picking one at random, I fixed Battlestar Galactica (both the old and the new episodes). That took me about fifteen minutes using tabbed browsing. ] 13:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Thanks for the research, Yaksha. There's obviously a lot of work to be done.
	:As long as we're explaining our motives in edit summaries and/or talk pages and directing people here, I'd like to think we'll avoid being seen as insensitive thugs. Perhaps the polite notice I posted above is only necessary when there is discussion on talk pages about naming systems? If no one has discussed it for a particular show, I think we can assume that no one is too worried about it. --] ‹ <big>]\|]</big> › 17:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
	::It's probably best to put a note, maybe just in the edit summary, everywhere we make the changes. People who haven't been keeping up will be confused, and it could prevent a revert. - ] 18:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

	::: Since the "suffix" method is more prevalent than I'd thought, I strongly recommend that we not inform those WikiProjects/series with the language of, "There is already consensus," but instead that we tell them that there is currently discussion, and that we invite them to the party. I also recommend that we create a template to make this announcement. I overall like Toby's wording, but instead of announcing it as "consensus has already been reached," how about we state that there is an active discussion, to which any interested editors are invited? I think that would be a bit more respectful. For example:

	<blockquote>
	::::Greetings! There is currently an active discussion at ] about how to title television episode articles (specifically, when suffixes are and aren't a good idea). The goal of these discussions is to hopefully attain a Consensus, which will then be enforced on ''all'' episode articles of all television series, all over Misplaced Pages. Since the result of this discussion will very likely directly impact the naming of this particular article, any editors involved with this article are encouraged to join the discussion. IF YOU DO NOT PARTICIPATE, YOU SHOULD NOT COMPLAIN ABOUT THE RESULTING DECISION. If you would like to participate, please join the discussion at: ]. Thanks!
	</blockquote>

	:::Further, ''before'' we invite a bunch more people, can we ''please'' get rid of the old poll, and start something new, with wording that we're all in agreement with before it opens (and wording that doesn't change multiple times while it's running?). That would do a lot to allay my own concerns. For example, I'd like to see a question with wording like, "Should WikiProjects about a particular show, be allowed to make decisions that affect the article titles for that show, or must all decisions go through WP:NC-TV?" and "Should some television series be allowed to use a consistent naming convention where all episodes end with a suffix such as (<series> episode), or must all episodes be named strictly according to Misplaced Pages disambiguation guidelines, meaning no suffix unless there's already another article with the same title, elsewhere on Misplaced Pages? Note that this might mean that some series would then have a majority of episodes ''with'' suffixes, and a minority of episodes without, which could look odd in some cases." --] 19:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

	::::A new poll that's not confusing sounds good. "IF YOU DO NOT PARTICIPATE, YOU SHOULD NOT COMPLAIN ABOUT THE RESULTING DECISION" sounds a little harsh, I would leave that part out, otherwise a good idea. Maybe we should archive this page in preperation for the new poll. - ] 19:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::::We already answered the question about removing the old poll. No. There's no reason to. If you want to start a new poll with new questions, go ahead. —] (]) 20:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

	::::Elonka, IMHO questions like that are not up for vote or discussion. These articles are part of Misplaced Pages and as had been mentioned repeatedly there is no logical reason why there should be exceptions. Wording in standards that pre-emptively allow for an exception then isn't a standard - its an option, and that's what we are trying to avoid. -- ] 20:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

	:::::I agree that there's no need for another poll. The conversation has superceded the poll, and a consensus has been reached (at least among the active participants in this discussion). We could formally close the poll above, if that would help, but I really think that another poll would be a waste of time.

	:::::''However'', I do agree that we should politely inform all WikiProjects that have been using preemptive disambiguation of our discussion, and the direction it has gone. I'm thinking of something like this, based on Toby's proposed note:
	<blockquote>
	:::::::Greetings, <nameofseries> editors!
	:::::::As you may be aware, for the last several weeks there has been extensive discussion at ] about how Misplaced Pages articles on television episodes should be named. Editors from many areas of Misplaced Pages, including members of several different television WikiProjects, have worked together and come up with a ] that article titles should include disambiguating phrases only when there is another article on Misplaced Pages with the same name as the episode name. Thus, if you were creating episode articles for '']'', the episode ] would not need any disambiguation, whereas ] would, in order to differentiate it from ]. However, the guideline also recommends that ] exist as a redirect to the episode.

	:::::::The discussion has been fairly well-advertised at the Village Pump, in many WikiProjects' talk pages and on the talk pages of many television program episode lists. However, the editors contributing to the discussion at ] felt that it was appropriate to make one last call for discussion before people started moving episode articles to new names.

	:::::::We've noticed that many episodes of <nameofseries> are pre-emptively disambiguated: for example, <exampleepisode> is at <examplelocation>, even though there is no Misplaced Pages article at <examplelocationwithoutdisambig>. If you feel that there are strong reasons for this that have not ], please join the discussion at ]. (The current recommendations have been reached after much consideration, and are based on a long discussion about how to best comply with Misplaced Pages's general article naming scheme.)

	:::::::We appreciate the work that editors do in every area of Misplaced Pages, and want you to feel included in the decision-making process. Thank you for your help!
	</blockquote>
	:::::That's probably a bit wordy, but I was trying to balance the need for full inclusion (everybody has the right to participate in the discussion) with the practicalities of this debate (which I'm sure most of us are rather fatigued over — we don't want to have to explain the same points over and over again). What do you think? —] <small>(] • ])</small> 21:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

	:I crossed out ] from the list - it actually follows the standard convention, but may look otherwise at first glance because many episode titles are common phrases. For example, ] vs. ]. --] 21:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

	::Yep. I actually turned ] into a disambiguation page, because there were pre-existing links to two different pop songs by that name... —] <small>(] • ])</small> 21:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

	I think it's a bit dicey to ask "Should WikiProjects about a particular show, be allowed to make decisions that affect the article titles for that show, or must all decisions go through WP:NC-TV?" The question basically asks if NC-TV should have any authority - if the end result is "no" then you might as well disband NC-TV completely. If you want to change the policy, propose a new wording of the policy. I think the wording of the current poll is just fine, if the validity is questioned because it changed during the poll, just run it again. Also, the issue isn't even whether TV shows must follow NC-TV - the shows in question violate ] and ]. If you really want to name episodes however you want, the proper course of action is to get those two changed (or at the very least post the same notice there and any similarly appropriate places). Trying to override those two from a subset of wikipedia doesn't seem fair to the rest of the editors. --] 21:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

	The list didn't actually take that long. Thanks to the fact that almost all "list of episode" articles use the same few templates. I just did a lot of "what links here" for the templates.

	Yes, posting a note to the stargate project and the buffyverse project would be poliet, and i'm about to do that.

	Star Trek has already been informed on many talk pages, but there's be 0 response on any of them. I think it's safe to assume they're well informed but just don't care/mind.

	Most of the ppl in the lost and 4400 project are already here. And parrallel discussions were already going on in those two projects before they got bought here, so they're well informed.

	As for the series without projects, let's just go ahead. We need to balance practicality with the need to include everyone. We should just make sure we always explain and link here on the summaries so it gives people a fair chance to come here and complain/debate the moves. --] 00:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

	:Okay, Buffyverse, Stargate and the mortal combat projects have been informed. I've cut out one of the paragraphs about preemtive disambiguation, because it's not needed...as every episode covered by the two projects already have proper articles. --] 00:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

	::Thanks, Yaksha. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 01:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::Well...someone from the Mortal Kombat end responded by doing the moving themselves. They missed a few, so i'm just going to go ahead and mop up. --] 05:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

	Josiah, your version of the "polite note" is excellent; I was thinking of something along the same lines all day but haven't been able to get to a computer until now. :)

	Looking at this from the point of view from a new editor coming into the discussion, I wonder if it would be beneficial to:
	* Archive at least some of the extraordinarily long discussion on this talk page
	* Add a new section titled something like "Episode Article Names FAQ" that succinctly summarizes the most common concerns regarding the guideline along with tactful answers to those concerns as brought up here
	The second point here is served pretty well by ], but we might be able to make it easier for new people by restating that in a way that is oriented toward them.
	Does anyone else think this would be useful? I'd hate for anyone to be turned off by the sheer length of prose on this talk page, if they're just looking for some enlightenment on the naming convention. --] ‹ <big>]\|]</big> › 07:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::I'm relunctant to archieve a discussion so recent, but this is....quite huge. Perhaps just archieve everything up to Josiah's previous summary? --] 08:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I think this is a good idea, and I'm going to be '''bold''' and do that. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I've archived everything up to the "crawling up Mount Consensus"; the page was 250 kilobytes long, so I think this was appropriate. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 21:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

	== Multi-part episodes ==

	I thought I'd check in here, as I've had to start a deletion review over an episode article that was deleted on the grounds that, according to guidelines, episodes with more than one part should be included entirely within the same article. Can anyone cite or otherwise verify this for me, or is it a load of hooey? --] 18:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
	:I don't know anywhere that says you ''have'' to do it as one, but there are features if that's what you want at ]. - ] 19:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
	::Hmm. I was sure I'd seen a guideline page that stated that multi-part articles should only have one article... Ah, there it is: ]. Kind of an obscure place for such a guideline, but there it is: "Multipart episodes should have only one article." For what it's worth, I agree. To me, the title of an episode is more significant than how many parts it happened to be broadcast in, especially considering the number of parts may differ between original broadcast and syndication/DVD, or different broadcast markets anyway. If the producers choose to use the same title for more than one part, it's probably better to keep them in the same article. -- ] 19:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::If it's truly one episode, one entry is fine. If they have their own credits and different guest stars or whatever, I think they should get multiple entries. - ] 19:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::That's still not grounds for a deletion. The pages should be merged and then left as redirects to keep the edit history in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy. ] 20:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::::As it stands, very little would be lost in the deletion of the articles I'm currently asking about this for. Only some infobox information would need to be transcribed. The rest of the article is basically only a starting point for more to be added. And, as such, it has already been moved about. Thanks!--] 23:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

	== Executive Summary ==

	WOW! I've been gone for a few days and it looks like this just exploded and has now started to move towards a conclusion. Could someone give me the executive summary so I don't have to read through it all? Also we may want to archive this (if the discussions all done) and rather then calling it ] with just a date it might be best to call it ] that way it's easily identifiable. --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">] \| ] \| ]</span></small> 09:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

	:Basically, lots more argueing back and forth between individuals. Josiah created an summary of arguments (first edit of the section "reasons for exceptions"), after which i suggested we wrap things up here. The Star Trek example was still the main point of debate - so a notice was posted over at the star trek project page asking for input. The original discussions that led to the Star Trek project taking their current naming convention was fished out(, , and ).

	:Towards the end, i think we pretty much agreed on sticking with the "disambiguate only when needed" clause. The "should we allow exceptions" is still a little up in the air. Which is why notices have been posted to the talk pages of wikiprojects for TV series that use the "always disambiguate" form asking for input. Otherwise, a list of all TV series which use the "always disambiguate" format was generated (see "Other programs not in accordance with this guideline" section). The "should we use "nameofseries" or "nameofseries episode"" is still up in the air too, and i think people have just decided it isn't that important.

	:Now, we're waiting for responses from the wikiprojects of TV series which always disambiguate, moving pages for TV series that always disambiguate but don't have wikiprojects, and thinking about archieving this page.

	:Also, some minor changes were made to the naming conventions, you can just take a look at the history for the project page. --] 10:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

	== Comments from WikiProject Stargate ==

	Firstly, thank you to Yaksha for letting the project know about this discussion - it seems we managed to miss it somehow (at least, I haven't noticed any names from people active on the project). Secondly, I'd like to explain how we do Stargate episodes and why. All episodes are "disambiguated" with either (Stargate SG-1) or (Stargate Atlantis), non-episode articles are disambiguated with (Stargate) only when necessary. The main reason for this is consistancy - it makes it much easier to link to episodes when you know exactly where to find them. Having redirects would help, but it's always best to link directly to an article if you can. One of the most important times we need to know the exact names is with out templates, of which we use a lot. The main ones relevant to this discussion are {{tl\|sgcite}} and {{tl\|xsgcite}} which take the name of the episode (and optionally the initial of the show, defaulting to SG-1) and output it with the appropriate disambiguation in the appropriate format for mentioning episodes inline, and in references, respectively.

	If we were going to move all the articles to undisambiguated titles, we'd end up linking to redirects almost every time we mention an episode. --] 09:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	:No point in explaining reasons here.. the people against suffixes are attempting to nullify anyone supporting them, and have even began moving pages with no consensus to do it. <small>] (]{{·}} ]{{·}} <span class="plainlinks" style="color:#002bb8"></span>{{·}} ])</small> 09:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	::You are mistaken, Matthew, we have a rather strong consensus and arguments all made above.

	::In response to Tango, there is no harm to link to a redirect, and a bot or something like AWB can easily update all of that. The templates are also an easy fix. I'll gladly help out where I can. There really isn't an issue here, and it's probably a lot easier than you think. -- ] 10:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	*I think we're going to need a FAQ for this :) if we move "episode (Stargate SG-1)" to "episode", it automatically leaves a redirect, so there are no technical problems for the Wikiproject. It's not "always best to link directly to an article", linking to a redirect is perfectly fine or the developers wouldn't have created them. ] 10:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

	Yes, one of the good things about redirects is that you can link to the "wrong article" but readers will still arrive at the "right article". However, i don't quite understand what you said about the templates. If we moved the star trek episode articles, exactly what is going to go wrong with the templates? Will they just result in links which are redirects, or is there also some other concern? --] 10:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

	::Linking to a redirect takes noticeably longer to load than linking directly, and I would imagine causes twice the load on the servers. Redirects are convenient, but they shouldn't be used intentionally without good reason - they are there so your links will still work if you make a mistake on the name. The templates will work fine after all the articles are moved, but they'll all be disambiguated because it's impossible for the template to know where the article is, so they'll be a lot of redirects (and not ones a bot or AWB can fix, as we don't subst the templates because we might want to change the formatting in the future). I don't think causing inconsistency within a project and large numbers of redirects is worth it just to avoid a little inconsistency with the rest of Misplaced Pages. --] 10:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

	:::They don't take any longer to load, nor do they cause "double" the server load. Most of the templates can be adapted. Don't be scared, there won't be more work to do to cite an episode, it won't hurt Misplaced Pages, all will be fine. There is no major negative side effect. -- ] 11:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

	::::No expert on technicalities here, but ] seems to show that redirects are not very taxing on the server at all. "''In other words, readers of Misplaced Pages would have to use a redirect link about 10,000 times before it would be worthwhile to replace that link with a direct link.''". --] 11:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::*See also ], a strong recommendation by Brion Vibber. We pay developers to do that worrying for us. If and when redirect performance becomes problematic, they will inform us; until then we can use them as much as we please. ] 12:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

	:::::Ok, maybe I was imagining the slower response to redirects (or just thinking about viewing them with popups, which is definitely slower, it seems to do the redirect manually). My comment about the server load was secondary - I was more worried about the loading times for users.
	:::::The templates can certainly not be adapted, they'll have to link to the redirect page (which you've now convinced me isn't a serious problem, so it doesn't matter).
	:::::--] 15:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

	==(showname) or (showname episode)==

	OK, we've decided to follow WP's rules for disambiguation. Let's decide if a page that must be disambiguated should have (showname) or (showname episode) appended to it. Obviously, if (showname) is chosen and it's already taken by a character page or someting, use (showname episode). - ] 17:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

	===(showname)===
	# '''support''' Let's keep it as simple as possible. - ] 17:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	# '''Support'''. —] (]) 18:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	# <s>'''Support'''</s> '''Abstain'''. There is already a vote on this particular issue ]... I suggest you close this repeat survey and vote up there. We might want to move that survey down to the bottom of this page. --] 18:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	#*Someone (anonymously) just archived the survey ]. In general, it's frowned upon to repeat a survey so soon after having one on the same issue, especially when the first one had so many participants. This instantiation of the survey needs to be justified somehow in order to be credible. --] 20:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	#** Josiah Rowe stated above that he did the archieving, because the page was getting way too long.
	# In most cases, I think clashes between episodes and other articles about the show can be avoided in a similar way to how Stargate pages are done - episodes get the name of the show, other articles just get "(Stargate)". I think other shows use a similar system (non-episode Buffy articles are suffixed "(Buffyverse)" for instance, so their episodes could be "(Buffy)" ). --] 18:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	#'''Weak support'''. My general preference is for shorter disambiguation phrases, so (Showname) is better than (Showname episode); however, I think that as long as pre-emptive disambigution is avoided, it doesn't really matter ''that'' much which disambiguation phrase is used when it is necessary. I'd prefer to finish up the other debate before getting bogged down in this one; I actually think we can let this aspect go for a while. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	# '''Support''' Always in favor of keeping it simple. But do agree this was not the more important of the issues. ] 21:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	# '''Support''' (obviously except in the examples of ], ], ] etc.)~<b><font color="purple">]</font></b><sup>]</sup> 21:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	# '''Support''' --] 03:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	===(showname episode)===

	==Summary of naming issue==

	I still feel quite strongly that ] is invalid, because its format and wording were changed so many times while it was in-process.
	for just a few diffs to indicate the mass confusion.

	As such, I'd like to start over fresh, with a summary of the issue, and a new poll, where we agree on the wording beforehand, then open it, and refrain from changing the wording while it's in process. As such, here's my own "nutshell synopsis" of the issue as it stands:

	:On a careful review of current Misplaced Pages practices, it is clear that in situations where a television series has individual episodes, that in many cases, the editors who created the episode articles chose to use a consistent naming system, where a suffix of (<seriesname>) or (<seriesname> episode) was added to each article title, even when not specifically required by disambiguation rules.

	:As this practice has come to light, some editors who are in favor of a more strict interpretation of ], say that this process is improper, and that all of these hundreds of television articles should be changed to bring them back into strict adherence (meaning that a suffix should only be included if it is absolutely necessary for disambiguation purposes if there's another article of the same title elsewhere on Misplaced Pages).

	:Other editors feel that there's nothing wrong with the practice of consistent suffixes, and that it has various advantages, such as consistency in linking, making category listings look cleaner, and providing helpful context in watchlists. They believe that the Naming Conventions guideline should be updated to indicate that this "allow consistent suffixes" method should be included as an acceptable alternative for article naming. Or in other words, per ], "''Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception''"

	:Other editors feel that the "consistent suffix" method should be ''generally'' discouraged, but that it may be warranted as an exception in certain situations. For example, some series have cases where the majority of their episodes already require a suffix for disambiguation reasons, so it might make sense to also add a suffix to the minority of episodes that don't have it, for consistency's sake. Other series have gone through multiple title changes (such as ''Star Trek''), and those editors have chosen to use a consistent (<abbreviation> episode) system, such as "(TOS episode)" "(DS9 episode)", etc.

	:A potential poll question for this issue is: "When is it appropriate for articles about episodes of a television series to use a consistent naming system, such a consistent suffix of (<seriesname> episode) after each episode title?" Answers could be "Always - all series should use this system," "Never - suffixes should only be used when absolutely required for disambiguation", "Sometimes - it should be taken on a case by case basis, depending on the needs of that particular series."

	Does this sound like a fair summary of the issue, and a fair wording of a poll question? If not, please feel free to suggest alternate wording. --] 20:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	:The previous RfC was a total mess - I think your suggestion is pretty good :) <small>] (]{{·}} ]{{·}} <span class="plainlinks" style="color:#002bb8"></span>{{·}} ])</small> 20:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	::Maybe two seperate polls? One with "always", "never", and "sometimes" as above. Another with (showname) vs. (showname episode)? We should figure both things out now, while everyones watching. - ] 20:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

	:I would like to see some evidence that ''at least one person'' in the prior survey voted incorrectly "because its format and wording were changed so many times" before I would agree that it is invalid. --] 20:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

	:The above does not sound like a fair summary of the issue. For example, the second paragraph is obviously biased. I suggest:

	::As this practice has come to light, some editors have noted that this process creates names that are inconsistent with the way Misplaced Pages articles are named in general. Many editors believe that those articles that do not require disambiguation should be changed to be consistent with accepted and widely followed general Misplaced Pages naming conventions as reflected in the ] and ] guidelines.
	:The above is just an example, but it's all moot because the need for a new survey has not been established per my previous point. --] 20:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

	::Elonka, the existing consensus on this page is '''not''' based on the poll, but on the '''extensive''' conversation that has followed it. You are correct that the poll was altered, and some of the poll-related discussion may have been unclear, but there has been a '''great''' deal of discussion since then. Remember that ], and Misplaced Pages prefers ]. Accordingly, I take the many, many kilobytes of discussion into greater account than the poll, which was only a preliminary gauge of opinions. Please read ] — although that page has not been approved, it is an accurate description of how policies and guidelines are formed on Misplaced Pages.

	::I have yet to see any response to my summary of the arguments at ]. In this section, you have merely restated the arguments which I believe I and others have successfully argued against. All your arguments can be summarized by "consistency", "precedent" and "context", none of which are supported by other Misplaced Pages policies. "Common sense and the occasional exception" is a completely different matter from establishing a ''guideline'' which codifies those exceptions.

	::I also oppose having another poll on this subject, as I feel that the '''discussion''' (not the poll) has reached an adequate consensus, and we should move on to the next stage. You and Matthew Fenton are the only editors who disagree with the existing consensus, and consensus does ''not'' mean 100% agreement. Let's move on. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

	:::I agree with Josiah, the discussion clearly stood on it's own. Not only that, but that mass of diffs links is a bit misleading, as most of them had nothing to do with the actual formatting of the poll. The majority of the votes took place while the poll was reasonably clear in what it meant. "Mass confusion" is a bit of an exaggeration. Again, the discussion stands alone from the poll and shows support for the guideline's current version, as well as coming to the conclusion that Lost and Star Trek do not have a reasonable exemption from this guideline. -- ] 21:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	Elonka, here's a compromise proposal. If you ask the people who voted against the guideline you want, and explain to them what the vote was really for, and you find more than a few people that eseentially say, "Oh!!! Is that what I supported! I wanted to vote on the other side!", then we can restart the poll. What do people think of that? Your appeal for re-starting the poll is alleged procedure problems, but the appeal needs to be won (i.e., the procedure problems need to be proven) before the poll can be re-run. —] (]) 22:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

	Also, I already posted messages to those same people a long time ago. They all seem totally disinterested. ]; ]. 22:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


	: (edit conflict) Serge, I provided 28 diffs of impropriety in that poll (and that wasn't even a complete collection), and yet still you're asking for proof? How about this, where "oppose" comments were deleted (one of them with the comment of "stupid votes")? . And here are comments where people are complaining about it . And Ned, even you admitted that the poll wording was changing the meaning of people's "votes": . The poll is invalid. Let's bury it and go on to a better and cleaner one. And look at it this way: If you're so convinced that you have a clear and unambiguous consensus, then it won't matter how many polls we do, right? We could do 20 polls and they'd all say the same thing. So, prove it. Let's do a clean poll with no funny business, where we're in agreement with the wording before we open it. I don't see why there should be any objection to this. --] 22:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	*After being shown here and viewing the situation, I think in this instance the poll does need to be redone. Although I agree that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, in this instance some voters feel violated that the poll has changed its name so many times. The wording of a poll can make participants change there view, thus it’s unfair to keep changing the wording and it makes people’s opinion on it differ. I understand that it’s going to create a lot of hassle restarting a poll but it has to be done and I’m sure those willing to participate originally will want to participate again. Most comments won’t take more than 10 minutes to write, although I do feel for those that have already expressed their opinions. When there’s a disagreement over a poll, you can’t let the poll decide a consensus. One final thing, this time it is essential to agree over the wording of the poll before it takes place. There should be no going back from this point ] 22:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	::Let's redo it. It doesn't hurt anything. We need to come up with good wording from the beginning. - ] 23:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::It hurts plenty by slowing us down. Also, as I said before, I doubt there'd be much interest. Not to mention the fact that straw polls are secondary in finding consensus. Most of the "votes" were one time deals to these people. They treated it like a petition or something abd left. Why all the push and stock over such a process? ]; ]. 23:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

	Elonka - You're providing evidence that things were changed around - no one is disputing that. I'm asking for evidence that any of the votes up there ''currently'' does not reflect the position of the voter at that time the vote was made. Second, you're ignoring Josiah's lucid argument about the problem with relying on polls in the first place, and the ''discussion'' establishing the true and preferred consensus. Third, you're ignoring the fact that voters were notified about the changes. Fourth, are you serious about "it won't matter how many polls we do"? Requiring people to ''revote'' is unfair (which is why I'm abstaining from the survey started today about whether "episode" should be included - even though there was no consensus on that point established). We should try to avoid voting in the first place (per Josiah's argument). We should try to avoid revotes even more. I'm starting to believe that you're just complaining for the perhaps-unconscious-and-so-in-good-faith purposes of simply delaying changes that you (and hardly anyone else) happen to oppose. --] 23:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

	:Oh! Burn! ]; ]. 23:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

	For the most part, I don't think those diffs really prove much of anything. The question didn't really change, just the debate around it. And if anyone felt like their vote was invalidated by the change, why haven't they said so themselves. It just seems like an excuse to re-do and hope there's a different result, even though the discussion itself shows a pretty strong consensus. And I take strong issue with the proposed summary, it's incredibly biased toward those who don't want to follow the naming guidelines among other things. I'm glad to see that articles are already being renamed, let's hope that attempts at stalling don't slow it down. --] 23:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

	: As an additional reason to redo the poll, I have suspected, and am now gathering proof, of ] in both the poll and discussion: {{user\|Izzy Dot}}. The poll is invalid, and needs to be redone. If anyone doesn't like my proposed wording, they are welcome to suggest something new. But please stop with the personal attacks, stop with the harassment, and stop accusing me of bad faith. Even without the sockpuppetry charge, we've already had multiple calls for redoing the poll, so let's stop arguing about whether or not it's necessary, and instead work on coming up with wording we agree with. --] 00:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
	::If you absolutely insist on doing another poll, at least let the wording be agreed apon and sit for a couple days. The last thing we need is yet another poll that isn't worded neutrally and is called into question from the beginning. --] 00:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	::Elonka, I'm sorry you are upset about the results of the poll, but the fact that the wording was changed and you have made one accusation of sockpuppetry does not change the fact that the discussion during the poll came to same conclusion as the results of the poll itself. No one is going to stop you from starting a new poll, but the reason people are trying to dissuade you from doing so is because doing a new poll is just going to be a waste of everyone's time and will come to the same conclusion that we have already reached. However, some people seem to have to learn things the hard way. If you are one of those people and '''do''' start a new poll, don't be surprised when many participants choose to abstain, commenting that the poll is unnecessary because they already voted above and a consensus has already been reached. ] 00:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	::Elonka, please stop repeating your refuted points while continuing to ignore the points that have been made repeatedly by multiple people in response. You're still ignoring Josiah's argument, which was supported explicitly by Ned and implicitly by several others including Yours Truly, and makes your argument that the poll is invalid moot. Now you're also ignoring my points and those of Milo and Ace Class Shadow as well, points that challenge your contention that the poll is invalid. Personal attacks? Harassment? I hope you're joking. Two or three people who are not satisfied with the outcome of a survey calling for a re-vote does not constitute proof that the poll is invalid. I'm now asking for a third time, please provide ''some'' evidence that any of the current votes in the poll do not accurately reflect the relevant voter's position. You have not done this. And I'm not accusing you of bad faith when I ask rehetorically what besides delay tactics would explain your dodging all these points and repeating your own repeatedly refuted ones? --] 00:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	Did someone just accuse me of being a fucking sockpuppet? I ain't nobody's puppet, hear? ] (] \| ]) 00:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
	: So you are claiming to be a new account, that just happened to have elaborate knowledge of Misplaced Pages procedures from day one, which just happened to be a couple weeks ago? --] 01:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	::I used to be an unregistered user. Read my fraggin' profile. ] (] \| ]) 01:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	:::Having a new account, even if he had a previous account, is in itself not a bad thing. It really would only be an issue if he was using both accounts in the same discussion. -- ] 02:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	No, waste of time. Discussion reached agreements, so what's the point of dragging everyone around for a new poll? We're in the agreement that the guildline should be "disambiguate only when needed", now all you're arguing about is whether to allow exceptions. The episode articles for about half a dozen series have already been moved, and there's no evidence of there being any disruption caused. Quite the opposite actually (see the]). So exactly what are you argueing for? to change the guildlines around to "always disambiguate"? Or is this back down to the fact that you want Lost episodes and Star Trek episodes to say the way they are? --] 03:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	:Hi! I came across this and thought I'd throw in an outsider's thoughts.
	*First thing: Can't you guys get along and collaborate?
	*I agree for the most part with "disambiguate only when needed." In the case of guildlines, such as this, there obviously needs to be flexibility.
	*The best course of action: Make a list of what to "allow exceptions." Then the changes will be in plain sight and you guys can debate it amongst yourselves. Just keep it ].
	:Hope that helps very little! —] 21:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	:::Most of us can get along, and we have no problem with ''rationale'' exceptions. This is more of an issue of 2 or 3 editors being stubborn because they can't come up with a rationale exception. Also NPOV applies to how we write articles; it's ok to have a point of view on the talk page. -- ] 21:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	As for ''why'' I want a new poll, I believe that with the vitriole in this discussion, where a few editors with highly uncivil communication styles are attacking anyone who disagrees with them, that this environment has not been conducive to civil discussion. Further, I believe that this discussion has been dominated by a few editors who have the time to post multiple times per day, but I do not agree that someone who posts more often, should have their opinion given more weight than that of someone who can only post a few times per week. This is another reason that I would like to see a fair poll conducted, to ensure that we have the widest possible participation, where different editors' voices are given equal weight.

	Anyway, after wading through the latest series of personal attacks and incivility, here's what I've distilled as the next round of potential new poll wording. Do folks like this better?

	: On a careful review of current Misplaced Pages practices, it is clear that in situations where a television series has individual episodes, that in many cases, the editors who created the episode articles chose to use a consistent naming system, where a suffix of (<seriesname>) or (<seriesname> episode) was added to each article title, even when not specifically required by disambiguation rules.

	: As this practice has come to light, some editors have noted that this process creates names that are inconsistent with normal Misplaced Pages ], and as such, these editors believe that those articles with suffixes, that did not require them for disambiguation, should be changed to non-suffix versions in order to be consistent with Misplaced Pages naming conventions.

	:Other editors feel that there's nothing wrong with the practice of consistent suffixes, and that it has various advantages, such as consistency in linking, making category listings look cleaner, and providing helpful context in watchlists. They believe that the Naming Conventions guideline should be updated to indicate that this "allow consistent suffixes" method should be included as an acceptable alternative for article naming. Or in other words, per Misplaced Pages:Guideline, "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception"

	: Other editors feel that the "consistent suffix" method should be generally discouraged, but that it may be warranted as an exception in certain situations. For example, some series have cases where the majority of their episodes already require a suffix for disambiguation reasons, so it might make sense to also add a suffix to the minority of episodes that don't have it, for consistency's sake. Other series have gone through multiple title changes (such as Star Trek), and those editors have chosen to use a consistent (<abbreviation> episode) system, such as "(TOS episode)" "(DS9 episode)", etc.

	: A potential poll question for this issue is: "When is it appropriate for articles about episodes of a television series to use a consistent naming system, such as a consistent suffix of (<seriesname> episode) after each episode title?" Answers could be "Always - all series should use this system," "Never - suffixes should only be used when absolutely required for disambiguation", "Sometimes - it should be taken on a case by case basis, depending on the needs of that particular series."

	: And a related question is, "In cases where a suffix is to be used, is it better to use (<series>), (<series> episode), or to allow other methods (such as the ''Star Trek'' abbreviation system), as long as it is consistent throughout that series?

	And folks, ''please'' try to keep comments ]? I've been asked why I don't specifically reply to everyone's comments here, and one reason is, that as soon as someone resorts to personal attacks or uncivility, I tend to ignore anything else they have to say (as is recommended in ]). So if you want your voice to be heard, please concentrate on being polite, being civil, and showing that you have as much respect for the opinions of editors who ''disagree'' with you, as respect for the opinions of those who agree with you. A civil discussion all around, will help things to move along much more smoothly. Thanks, --] 23:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Your allegations of incivility and personal attacks are getting boring. Take them to ] if you feel so strongly. You're just ignoring everyone's messages here including my invitation to find people who agree that the poll was tainted. I can't figure how you can expect anyone to take your pleas for dialogue seriously when you won't partake in dialogue yourself. —] (]) 23:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	::No offense Elonka, but aside from Izzy Dot...you're accusations (such as "''after wading through the latest series of personal attacks and incivility''") have been far closer to to "uncivility" than anything else here. As far as i can see, this discussion has flowed very smoothly, beeing very productive towards the end, and very civil except for your accusations. If you believe otherwise, then please provide some examples of what you've felt to be "incivil comments" and "attacks".

	::Until then, i'm not going to bother furthing discussion with someone who is accusing me of being uncivil and attacking. --] 04:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

	Alright, so I haven't heard any objections to the new poll wording so far. Let's give it another day or so, and then if there are still no objections, we'll open, and announce on all the List/WikiProject pages about the new poll. --] 21:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
	:What in the world?! What poll? Who agreed to another poll? Are you actually going to bulldozer forward with a poll even though one single person agrees with it? Am I going insane? Is someone else agreeing with this idea of polling and polling until you get a result that you like? —] (]) 22:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
	::Not to my knowledge. Maybe she's trying to use this straw poll to resolve the suffix issue as an excuse to make the new poll that we've all turned down already. ]; ]. 22:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
	::: The poll that was "bulldozed" was the original one, which is why it needs to be re-done. If you'll take time to actually read the posts in the above discussion, editors that have so far supported the idea of a new poll are me, MatthewFenton, Peregrinefisher, EnglishRose, and Milo H Minderbinder (provided that we agree on wording). A new and cleanly-run poll is not going to hurt anything, and will hopefully help settle the matter of consensus once and for all. Let's please work on discussing the wording, rather than continuing to argue about whether or not a new poll is necessary. --] 22:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::::For the record, I strongly oppose doing another poll. I don't think the changes to the previous one invalidated it in any way, and I think from the discussion there is a clear consensus with a couple individuals who don't agree. My previous comment was only that if a new poll was railroaded through, the wording suggested was extremely biased. --] 14:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::Some folks love ] arguments. —] (]) 16:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::We shouldn't be arguing at all, the issue has been resolved. The poll is not what decided the issue, it's the discussion. The discussion proved, without a doubt, that there is no reason to deviate from the guideline. I really hope you don't poke at strawmen until you get your way. ] 22:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Come on folks: whatever each of us may feel about the issue at hand, or think about the probable outcome, we have some clear irregularities in the previous poll. It makes sense to come to an agreement on the appropriate wording and do a clean poll. Consensus gathering is also about making everyone feel like their stance was fairly considered and weighed. -- ] 22:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::Elonka, I think you're misappropriating old comments. If they feel as you say, they'd comment. Rather than taking their ''archived'' statements out of context to further your own agenda, I'd recommend contacting them as I contacted the others. Anyone who feels their opinion was not properly expressed should comment, but if they choose not to, I'm afraid anything else is just a meaningless quote.
	:::::Agreed, Jay. As you, I and countless others have explained, straw polling is a secondary form of finding concensus.
	::::::People who treat the process like a petition or democratic vote and never return don't show a real desire to be "counted" in the respect you're referencing, PKTM. ]; ]. 22:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::That's not a fair representation of what I actually said, Ace. For one thing, I ''don't'' agree that polling is like a democratic vote, and have frequently elsewhere voiced my views on that. My point was that the poll was indeed irregular, and that we owe it ''to the consensus process'', given that people have pointed that out, to engineer a poll with a clearer, less disputable outcome. That's all I said. Not everyone will (in your terms) show a "real desire to be counted" by wading into a dispute where incivility is already present. And as another editor noted above, mentioning the value of an "outsider's perspective", "can't you guys get along and collaborate?" -- ] 00:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::Starting a poll at this point is meaningless. It's the discussion that matters and the discussion has concluded. ] 02:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::The only poll that should be done is to find out anyone was misled by the original poll. I'll be surprised if you find a single one. That said, this new supposed poll should be very simple if you want it to be effective. List the exact wording you want in the guideline. That's it. Otherwise, the results of the poll will be subject to interpretation no matter what they are and you'll just end up starting over again. No big long explanations - you can do that in the discussion section. That's what went wrong in the first poll - there was far too much explanation and detail in the choices themselves. —] (]) 02:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	*There appears to be agreement over the standard now amongst most people, and there have been no strong reactions to the attempted renaming, and several WikiProjects have indicated they have no objection. As such I entirely fail to see the point of yet another poll on the subject. If discussion resolves an issue, polls aren't needed. (]) 12:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

	===New poll wording===
	There are sufficient calls for a new poll, that we are going to proceed with one. Once the new poll is announced, we can put the word out to all the WikiProjects to come in and participate. If, as some of the individuals in this discussion insist, there is already consensus, it will show up in the poll. If not, we need to keep talking, and/or take this to mediation or ArbCom.

	The poll format will be thusly. If anyone would like changes, please be specific:

	: == Poll on article naming ==

	:: On a careful review of current Misplaced Pages practices, it is clear that in situations where a television series has individual episodes, that in many cases, the editors who created the episode articles chose to use a consistent naming system, where a suffix of (<seriesname>) or (<seriesname> episode) was added to each article title, even when not specifically required by disambiguation rules.

	:: As this practice has come to light, some editors have noted that this process creates names that are inconsistent with normal Misplaced Pages ], and as such, these editors believe that those articles with suffixes, that did not require them for disambiguation, should be changed to non-suffix versions in order to be consistent with Misplaced Pages naming conventions.

	:: Other editors feel that there's nothing wrong with the practice of consistent suffixes, and that it has various advantages, such as consistency in linking, making category listings look cleaner, and providing helpful context in watchlists. They believe that the Naming Conventions guideline should be updated to indicate that this "allow consistent suffixes" method should be included as an acceptable alternative for article naming. Or in other words, per ], "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception"

	:: Other editors feel that the "consistent suffix" method should be generally discouraged, but that it may be warranted as an exception in certain situations. For example, some series have cases where the majority of their episodes already require a suffix for disambiguation reasons, so it might make sense to also add a suffix to the minority of episodes that don't have it, for consistency's sake. Other series have gone through multiple title changes (such as ]), and those editors have chosen to use a consistent (<abbreviation> episode) system, such as "(TOS episode)" "(DS9 episode)", etc.

	: === Poll ===
	: ====Question #1====
	:: ''When is it appropriate for articles about episodes of a television series to use a consistent naming system, such as a consistent suffix of (<seriesname> episode) after each episode title?" As with an AfD, each editor can answer with an optional one word answer, plus a sentence or two explaining their opinion, such as: "Always - all series should use this system," "Never - suffixes should only be used when absolutely required for disambiguation", "Sometimes - it should be taken on a case by case basis, depending on the needs of that particular series."''

	: ==== Question #2====
	:: ''In cases where a suffix is to be used, is it better to use (<series>), (<series> episode), or to allow other methods (such as the Star Trek abbreviation system), as long as it is consistent throughout that series? ''

	I think that this poll system also has the advantage of allowing people to post specific opinions, rather than a simply polarized support/oppose, which will further facilitate the "discussion" nature of this issue.

	Last call: Any concerns about the wording? --] 18:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	:There is not going to be another poll. Another poll is against consensus as well as judgement of two admins. —] (]) 18:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	::As you are personally involved in this matter and are bias in an opinion your "judgement" actually counts for zilch as you are not independent. (PS: Please keep your edit sumamrys civil, "NO" is not civil.) <small>] (]{{·}} ]{{·}} <span class="plainlinks" style="color:#002bb8"></span>{{·}} ])</small> 18:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

	:I think this looks basically fine, Elonka, and I'd like to call everyone to participate, rather than continue to dismiss the need for this clarified poll. I'm looking forward to seeing this issue put to rest as soon as possible, along with the odd level of anger and contumely that it has somehow provoked. -- ] 18:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	::My edit summary is fine. There needs to be a poll about whether there needs to be another poll. So far, there is absolutely no consensus on the need for another poll. —] (]) 19:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

	'''I'm opposed to having another poll''', particularly before Josiah's argument about the discussion being the preferred way to establish consensus, not polls, is addresed. And also Ned's analysis below needs to be addressed by those arguing another poll is never-the-less justified. Before that's all addressed, I would support immediately closing any poll like this that is posted. But '''IF''' all that is addressed and consensus is established to have a new poll (that's a big '''IF'''), the wording above needs a lot of work. In particular,it needs to reflect the Misplaced Pages philosophy of qualifying names beyond the simple/common name only when needed for disambiguation, and for the particular qualification to depend more on what the other subjects are rather than the category each article happens to be in (]). In case it comes to that, here's a specific suggestion for the wording.
	: ====Question #1 (revised)====
	:: ''Is it appropriate to qualify TV series episode article names beyond using the name of the episode when no other subject in Misplaced Pages uses that name, and, if so, when?
	::Each editor can answer with an optional one word answer, plus a sentence or two explaining their opinion, such as: "No - qualification should only be used when required for disambiguation, and, when it is required for disambiguation, how it is qualified should depend primarily on the other uses of that name", "No - qualification should only be used when required for disambiguation, and, when it is required for disambiguation, how it is qualified should be be based primarily on a consistent naming convention for each TV series, such as '(Series Name)'", "Yes - all TV series episode articles names should be qualified consistently whether qualification is needed ," "Yes, sometimes, depending on the whims of the editors of each particular series."
	: ==== Question #2 (revised)====
	:: ''In cases where a suffix is to be used, is it better to use (<series>), (<series> episode), or to allow other methods (such as the Star Trek abbreviation system), as long as it is consistent throughout that series, or, is it best to decide how to qualify a particular article name based on the other subjects that use that name independent of how other (episode) articles within that category (TV series) are qualified?''
	--] 19:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	::: Serge, thanks for making specific suggestions.
	:::* My question #1: ''When is it appropriate for articles about episodes of a television series to use a consistent naming system, such as a consistent suffix of (<seriesname> episode) after each episode title?''

	:::* Your question #1: ''Is it appropriate to qualify TV series episode article names beyond using the name of the episode when no other subject in Misplaced Pages uses that name, and, if so, when?''

	::: How about this then? ''When is it appropriate for TV series episode articles to use a suffix (such as (<seriesname> episode)? Should this be reserved strictly for cases where another article already exists by that name (i.e., for disambiguation), or is it acceptable for some series to use regular suffixes in order to provide for a consistent naming system?"''

	:::* My question #2: ''In cases where a suffix is to be used, is it better to use (<series>), (<series> episode), or to allow other methods (such as the Star Trek abbreviation system), as long as it is consistent throughout that series? ''

	:::* Your question #2: ''In cases where a suffix is to be used, is it better to use (<series>), (<series> episode), or to allow other methods (such as the Star Trek abbreviation system), as long as it is consistent throughout that series, or, is it best to decide how to qualify a particular article name based on the other subjects that use that name independent of how other (episode) articles within that category (TV series) are qualified?''

	::: I think that adding the extra clause, making it more of a compound question, could cause some confusion. Perhaps we want to break things out into a third question? --] 06:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	:Now let's not try to take Serge's post as ''supporting'' another poll. That's what was attempted with {{user\|Milo H Minderbinder}} who has since had to make himself clear that his previous statement was hypothetical. This whole ordeal is getting very tiresome with people reading anything they want into everyone's statements. Like how in the world can "NO" be considered an uncivil edit summary?! It's a word! This whole thing is reverting to a very infantile level and is on a road to no good. Get consensus for a new poll or cease and desist. —] (]) 19:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

	I don't agree that there have been sufficient calls for a new poll - if that's really the case, I'd like to see a tally of who's for and against (especially since '''I''' was listed incorrectly as someone in favor of another poll!). If a new poll ends up happening, I think the only way to do it is to actually write up proposed wordings for the different options and simply vote on those. Otherwise, after a poll is done, people will ''still'' argue over what the wording should be. Any poll should also make it explicitly clear that disambiguating when it's not necessary has no precedent in wikipedia (ships do not predisambiguate as suggested above) and conflicts with both WP:NAME and WP:DAB. Any calls for participants at various wikiprojects should also be posted at the talk pages for both of those as well. --] 20:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

	I've been following this discussion but haven't been contributing - I just wanted to add another voice to those who believe that episode titles should be disambiguated only when necessary to avoid confusion, and that there's really no need for another poll. It seems that only two people believe that individual projects should be allowed to name articles as they seem fit; everyone else believes otherwise. It seemed like the Stargate project had the only potentially reasonable claim for an exception I've heard - the rather complicated citing template they'd developed - but that problem seems to have been worked out as well. So there's my opinion, for what it's worth. --] 20:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

	:"''believe that individual projects should be allowed to name articles as they seem fit''" and even that is a '''non-existent problem''', since there exists NO wikiprojects who are wanting to name articles as they seem fit (see "Exactly what is the problem?"). --] 03:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

	Elonka, why do you keep plowing through with this supposedly agreed upon pole? At the very best—for your argument—there is no consensus either way. That means you leave things as they are. You can't have consensus with this much opposition. At the worst, there's consensus not to poll. Now, so far we've seen you stall, ignore the many opinions you don't agree with and even level a baseless claim of sockpuppetry. If you can't contribute without commiting all these bad faith acts, maybe you should excuse yourself from these proceedings. At the very least, you've shown that, whatever your stake in this '''discussion''', your bias has made you unreasonable. And no, this is not an attack. I've your userspace, and I know you're good. However, as another user commented to you, your behavior here has been disappointing. While I can't say that your "side" will be represented without you, it doesn't seem like you're really helping your case anymore, either. ]; ]. 23:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

	There is NOT enough calls for a new poll. We do NOT need a new poll. Seriously, taking this to the ArbCom? this is boarderlining trolling. We had a problem, the problem got fixed, someone who wasn't pleased with the result is now going to what...? keep stiring up discussion until things turn out in their way or until everyone else gets sick of it and leaves...leaving them to do what they want? someone tell me wikipedia does have some kind of mechanism to protect people from having to waste time on this kind of stirring-up-a-problem-when-none-exists... --] 03:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

	:I'd hope we can avoid taking such serious action, especially since Elonka has not contributed since my comment. It's been several hours, and I'm assuming, in good faith, that my message got through to her.
	:However, you do make a good point. If I'm wrong and she persists, we can consider my comment her last warning, or issue one to her. From there, yes, arbitration or some other request for comment may be in other. ]; ]. 03:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	::uhh...just clearing up a potential misunderstanding. The arbcom comment is only in response to Elonka's "''If not, we need to keep talking, and/or take this to mediation or ArbCom.''" --] 03:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

	:::On the first issue, the question should be asking for a "yes"/"no", not a "yes"/"no"/"sometimes". If "sometimes" wins then we have no consensus, so the whole thing is a waste of time. This is ignoring the fact that I don't think another poll is needed on the first question, which already had a consensus the first time round. With the second question it was much closer, so although I don't want another poll, I can see how further discussion would be useful. -- ] 04:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

	My goodness, now I'm being accused of "bad faith", "trolling", "being unreasonable," "disappointing," "transparent and blatantly pathetic," and "ignoring" people simply because I didn't respond within "several hours." Folks, please, relax. :) Sometimes I can get on Misplaced Pages every day, sometimes I can only get on once per day. And in the "once per day" time periods, it's very difficult to plow through dozens of messages (today it's 30 messages since my last post) of people calling me all kinds of names for "ignoring" them, and reply in detail to each and every post (especially when I'm not particularly inclined to respond to personal attacks in the first place).

	To be clear about why I do not think that we have consensus:

	* The first poll was obviously a mess, with the wording being changed repeatedly during the course of the poll, and people's comments being deleted and reinstated and moved around.

	* The discussion has been a mess, with a highly uncivil and hostile environment that is not conducive to polite discussion. Further, the discussion has been dominated by a few highly hyper individuals who seem to believe that by posting multiple times per day, and immediately attacking anyone who disagrees with them, that this somehow invalidates other people's opinions.

	* There have been many personal attacks and harassment during this process. These violations of ''policy'' are not conducive to a polite and civil discussion (see ]).

	* There has been an admin here threatening on multiple occasions to use his admin tools to force through his opinion. Further, I am extremely disappointed in this admin's behavior, since not only should he be setting a standard of courtesy and civility, but if he is so interested in enforcing Misplaced Pages policies, he should be ''reminding'' people of ], not routinely violating it himself.

	* There have been multiple individuals here who have been insisting on forcing through disruptive page moves, before an agreed-upon consensus. These actions have been further escalating the atmosphere of conflict.

	* There are multiple accounts here who have been engaging in extremely suspicious behavior that implies sockpuppetry. I have ''not'' yet had time to sit down and carefully pull together the data and file formal RFCU checks, but my specific concerns include:

	* Obvious "in concert" working between Ned Scott and Wknight94 (see the "Stalking" section of my userpage, plus other harassment by Wknight94 further down the page, plus ]).

	* Multiple new accounts participating (in a highly uncivil manner) in this discussion, including {{user\|Izzy Dot}} and {{user\|Milo H Minderbinder}}, both of which accounts have only been around for a few weeks, and are exhibiting similar behavior patterns to others in this discussion.

	Now, voices I ''do'' respect in this discussion, even if I occasionally disagree with them, are TobyRush, Josiah Rowe, and Radiant. I look forward to further communications with them, as well as with the others in this discussion who have been participating in a civil manner, towards achieving a real consensus.

	Anyone who takes the time to dig through my contribution history, or who has participated in discussions with me in the past, I hope realizes that I am a fair-minded individual who can engage in civil discussion, who can compromise, and who will abide by consensus. But I have ''not'' been seeing consensus here, I have been seeing a lot of unethical tactics, I have been seeing harassment, I have been seeing personal attacks, I have seen a poll that was thoroughly shredded in order to twist it into a biased format, and I have seen highly vocal resistance to a new and fair poll, which again reinforces to me that there's something shady going on. So I repeat again: Let's encourage civil discussion, and let's do a clean poll. If, on a level playing field, the genuine consensus is to enforce strict disambiguation rules, then not only will I abide by that consensus, I'll actually help with moving the articles. But so far, I am not seeing a civil consensus, I am seeing a noisy madhouse, with a few voices trying to have a civil discussion but getting drowned out by the roar. It is my opinion that a clean poll will help to clarify people's stands, with a "one comment per voice" method. If there's a genuine consensus, a poll will show this, and I give my word that I will abide by the decision of a clean and fair poll. --] 19:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	: Perhaps I missed it, but I see nothing new here. You keep repeating the same points, without addressing those made in response, including those of Josiah about establishing consensus through discussion rather than polling. Yesterday, you proposed a new poll and asked for specific feedback. I gave you some. Today, you're still calling for a new poll without addressing the specific feedback I took the time to provide. You're also continuing to ignore the argument presented in the '''Who voted under what poll format''' section below, repeating your points as if this defense of the previous poll has not been presented. Pardon me but I don't see much of an effort to ''communicate'' on your part. --] 19:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	::Loads of false statements in here, Elonka. I'm not even going to bother enumerating them, including the ones involving me - they're not even worth the effort. You're wasting everyone's valuable time. Get consensus for a new poll before you waste any more. You've whipped everyone up into a frenzy only to turn around and call the environment a "madhouse". Stop disrupting. —] (]) 19:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::] - Elonka makes lots of ''valid'' points (Well.. there allv alid actually tbh.) <small>] (]{{·}} ]{{·}} <span class="plainlinks" style="color:#002bb8"></span>{{·}} ])</small> 19:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::Yes, I know you think that - you're the only person on her side in this "madhouse". I think I was just called a sockpuppet which is a new one - but I'm sure it was said in the most civil way possible. —] (]) 19:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Frankly, this is just plain ugly now, Wknight. Accusing someone of disruption is a pretty drastic step. And before you jump to a conclusion: I don't think I'm even in agreement with Elonka's position on episode titling. But what I am in agreement with is that this has degenerated enormously. Elonka's proposal above is actually calm, civil, and constructive, simply asking for a clean poll, and stating that she'll accept the outcome. I'm mystified as to why there should be such anger and personal attacks associated with a truly minor issue. As I suggested above, have another poll, cleanly, and then, by god, let's move on. -- ] 19:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::::There is one severe problem that makes all of Elonka's points completely irrelevant. Her entire argument for pre-emptive disambiguation is based on a misunderstanding of the term "common sense exception". In order for a common sense exception to be made you must present a special case. No special case has been presented. In fact, a lot of this discussion has gone into showing that no tv series is any different from another or that no tv episode articles are any different from any other Misplaced Pages article. Saying the polling was inaccurate is a straw man, saying people were uncivil is arguing ad hominem. Neither of those things are to be used in any argument ever. That is why the discussion is over and moving articles has begun. ] 20:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

	::::Matthew, please... ]; ]. 20:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	Elonka, I agree with Serge, Jay and Wiknight. Your proposal of a new poll was clearly opposed, yet you moved forth as if it had been lauded. This is just one of many actions which worry us. We're not attacking you, we're just asking that you be as reasonable with us as you'd want us to be with you. "Do onto others". ]; ]. 20:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::::PK, Elonka has, among other things, ignored the clear opposition coming from those around here. Also, ]. Just a one concern with putting so much faith in a poll: sockpuppetry. Yeah, folks. It's been mentioned already, but let me be perfectly clear. Unregistered users, new users, pretty much anyone can "vote". We can't put too much faith in such an easily manipulated forma. Plus, how much say '''should''' those who just add their names to the poll and never return have? Lack of comment shows a lack of concern. If you don't care enough to comment, why even voice any opinion? And no, I don't mean once a day. I, myself, have not been very active, but I'm trying. The people I contacted whose "votes" could have been misappropriated aren't here complaining. Simply put, they don't seem to care. Another issue is how polling affects discussion. If there's another poll, there should be another discussion. That's policy. The discussion is the key to finding true consensus. Polls are a way of "testing the waters". And, as the many still active, subjects, comments and recent archival will show, another discussion would really put people off. I'm sorry, but this isn't like the election fraud; no one's being cheated out of their say. It's like a ''great debate''; talk's what counts, a clear consensus is found, and a few people don't feel strongly either way. ]; ]. 20:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

	For the record, I think the comments about ignoring other's point of view have nothing to do with taking time to reply, but posting a reply that doesn't address the other side at all. When multiple people say they have objections, followed by a response like "since there have been no objections..." that sure seems like ignoring. And what has been disruptive about moving articles so far? It seems like it has gone very smoothly and I haven't seen any objections from the various TV shows. This ''is'' a guideline, if a few people want to change it, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be followed in its current state during that discussion. --] 21:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

	If a new poll is to be made, then I insist that we ask an additional question: Who would win in a fight, ] or ]? -- ] 06:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	:Wolverine, definitely. But Spidey would have better jokes before he got skewered. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 06:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	::I second that. After all, if we're not ], why bother voting for him? --] 07:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	===Changed my mind===
	OK, after giving this some thought, I've changed my mind: with a few caveats, I ''will'' support a new poll, in the interests of clearing the air. I ''don't'' really think it's necessary — I think that the discussion has already established a consensus to avoid preemptive disambiguation — but I ''do'' agree that the tone of the discussion here has seriously deteriorated, and if a new poll is what it takes to calm things down I would rather have that than continued mudslinging. If other editors agree, we should try to find a clear, neutrally worded poll, and carefully follow the guidelines at ].

	As for those caveats, I just want us to remember that guidelines are '''not''' established by polls, but by discussion-based consensus. Elonka is correct that frequency of posting is not important — however, arguments and reason ''are''. It would be good for editors to boil their arguments down to the key points, and state them clearly. The consensus will be based not merely on the ''number'' of votes, but on the quality of the arguments used and how widespread support for those ''arguments'' is.

	I know that holding a new poll will be tedious and may feel like a waste of time, but surely this ongoing debate is a bigger waste of time. Ideally, we would ], but the discussion here has deteriorated so much that a vote may actually ''help''. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

	:An afterthought: perhaps the poll could be on whether the previous discussion adequately established a consensus in favor of the current guideline? —] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

	::Given the apparent difficulty in establishing new poll wording anyway, this suggestion seems reasonable. Elonka, if the new poll is simply: ''Did the ] adequately establish a consensus in favor of the current guideline?'', and the agree/support votes are in the majority, would you agree to stop calling for another poll? --] 23:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

	::: No, because I think that would be too complicated a matter for third-party editors to really make an informed decision on. The first poll was a mess, let's just bury it and move on. Let's have a new poll, started clean, that allows for "opinion" polling. Not a polarized "vote for or against" poll, but a more open-ended "When is it appropriate" kind of question to ensure that we can get the maximum number of opinions from as many editors as possible. --] 00:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	:::: And exactly who is going to vote in the new poll who hasn't already participiated in this discussion? I'd like to point out that between the two of us, we've advertised this discussion on village pump, the disambiguation policy talk page, the main naming conventions talk page, and 4 wikiprojects. Given all of that, it's more than safe to say everyone who cares either is here now or has been here.

	:::: I still don't agree with another vote, i see it just as "stirring up more debate" for something that's been more than settled. But if it calms things down here, then i'm not going to bother oppossing it.

	:::: Why don't we just add a third "I believe consensus has already been established here to disambiguate only when needed" option to the two existing "always disambiguate" and "disambiguate only when necessary" options? --] 01:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	::::: I found plenty of places that a poll can be announced, that haven't been covered yet. But I don't want to post announcements there, until we have agreed upon new wording. I see that WKnight94, despite his claim today that we don't need a new poll, went around today posting dozens of messages to people's talkpages, telling them to come back and restate their opinion, ''even though we haven't agreed on final poll wording''. Please, this situation is confusing enough. Let's agree on wording of a new poll ''first'', and ''then'' invite people, okay? --] 06:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	::::::He's completely free to do that. I even offered to do the same thing a few days ago. There is no need to poll again, and I for one will not agree to even have a new poll, let alone the wording. (that is to say, if you want to make one, go ahead, but I do not agree that we need one) Elonka, your next step in this matter is ArbCom, not a new poll. You will only get the same results as last time. -- ] 06:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	:::::::I don't want to speak for Wknight94, but I believe that his intention was to find out whether anyone was in fact misrepresented in the previous poll. If everyone who participated in the old poll confirms their vote, is a new poll still necessary? There was confusion in the old poll, yes — but if everyone eventually got to express their opinions, does it matter that there were a few procedural glitches? The purpose of a poll is to gauge opinion. I feel like that's been done. I'm still willing to support another poll if the need for it is shown, but based on the early results from Wknight94's canvassing, I'm not sure that it is. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 06:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	::::::::: Correct, there are several other places that I would like to announce a poll, but I am not going to do so until ''after'' we've agreed on wording. Things are already confusing enough. --] 06:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	== Move for ] requested ==

	I've <s>submitted</s> withdrawn the following move request at ]:
	:] → ]''' — Per ]. Please vote at ]
	--] 01:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Shouldn't ] redirect, like smother, to ]? What is the rule on that kind of thing? - ] 01:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	:: What Peregrine said. Also, please do ''not'' jump in and be moving articles around, since this discussion is not concluded. Moving articles at this point is just going to cause further confusion. --] 01:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	:::It is concluded, and they're already moving pages, genius. Give the fuck up! You lost. Game o. ] (] \| ]) 01:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	::::Izzy, your comments are not appropriate at all, and I shouldn't have to tell you that. A lot of us are feeling frustrated at some people, but that's no excuse to be rude. -- ] 07:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	:::No one is confused about anything, though some are disappointed and can't seem to let it go. --] 02:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	::'''Smothered''' ''did'' redirect to ]. I changed it to redirect to the L&O episode article instead. There were ''no'' links pointing to it. Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. We can't have the past tense version of every word redirect to the article about that concept, especially when we have a legitimate enyclopedic use of that word (the name of a TV episode). For example, ] is about the punk rock album of that title; it does not redirect to ]. --] 02:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	:::Now, if we may focus, I have something relevant to say. Serge, even though this is not a dictionary, don't you think it'd better to for searchers if stuff like "Scared" and "smothered" redirect to articles discribing the concepts? I mean, I really find those dab messages at the top of pagings gawdy. It'd be nice, linkless or not, if words redirected to decriptions rather than things named after them. I can't fucking STAND stuff like the "]" situation! ] (] \| ]) 02:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	::::Izzy, I think it was impolitic for Elonka to accuse you of being a sockpuppet, but I think your tone here is starting to get a little too hostile.

	::::Elonka, if you really think you have a valid rationale for your viewpoint, you should post a detailed rebuttal to Josiah's summary in the section titled "Reasons for exceptions" above. If you want to be taken seriously and not disregarded as a "sore loser" you should start making compelling arguments, rather than making unfounded accusations and complaining about bureaucratic matters. ] 02:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	:::::Nohat - agreed. --] 02:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	::::Izzy Dot, I see your point. I'd have a problem with "Smother", "Fear" or even "Scare" being names of articles about something other than the concepts, but the past tense, plural, etc. forms of these words? No, I don't have an issue with them being used for articles about books, films, TV shows and episodes, or whatever has that as its name. --] 02:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	Nohat, you're right. You guys are okay.

	Serge, I really disagree, but if that's the way things are, I'm not going to pull an Elonka. ] (] \| ]) 02:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	To Elonka - a lot of articles have already been moved over the last few days. You can take a look at the list futher up the page if you want. I believe you will find there is no evidence what so ever that those moves have been causing any confusion or disruption to editors on those articles. In fact, regular editors on those TV series have actually been helping in some cases.

	With regards to this move - no, there's no point putting it to requested moves. Just tag it for speedy deletion. A part of the criteria under "housekeeping" allows for the deletion of redirect pages so proper page moves can be made (as oppossed to the copy and paste method). The template you should use is <nowiki>{{db-move\|Page to be moved}}</nowiki>. --] 03:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Given the speedy move request, <s>I'm withdrawing</s> I've withdrawn my requested move. --] 06:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	The move was done through a speedy delete of the old ] redirect page. --] 15:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
	*The way it is disambig'ed now seems like a reasonable compromise. If there were other episodes from other series named similarly, we'd probably have to make a separate disambig page. (]) 12:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	::nods yeah...i've had to do a few (making disambiguation pages) over the last few days because it seems like there're a few names which keep getting used by TV series as episode names. --] 12:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

	== Who voted under what poll format ==

	The last hour I've stepped through each edit difference during the poll. I've made the following notes to show who voted during what "version" of the poll. The poll format did get changed, but I only found three different formats that contained votes.

	So lets start:


	Argash sets up RfC with the basic concept, pre-poll format

	Izzy Dot formats a poll based on Argash's RfC summary and suggestions

	<small>''Note: struck out editors are those who confirmed their vote in a later format. Editors in italics confirmed their vote later on in discussion, etc under the 2nd format.''</small>

	'''Votes (1st format)'''
	#<s>Elonka</s>
	#<s>''MatthewFenton''</s>
	#<s>Shannernanner</s>
	#<s>SigmaEpsilon</s>
	#Marky1981
	#<s>''Wknight94''</s>
	#<s>EEMeltonIV</s>
	#Mnemeson
	#<s>Josiah Rowe</s>
	#Opark 77
	#<s>Nohat</s>
	#Khaosworks

	Izzy Dot removes "opposes" in all three sections


	'''Votes (1st format, continued, no "formating" has been changed)'''
	#<s>Thedemonhog</s>
	#<s>Argash</s>
	#<s>''Izzy Dot''</s>

	I changed the bullets to numbers (* -> #) for easy counting

	I make the first major change to the poll since it started (same day). In this change the two issues become separated. What people supported previously is still "true", however some of the previous editors may need to list themselves under the new oppose section of "Disambig only when necessary". I then in the discussion.

	'''Votes (2nd format)'''
	#EnsRedShirt
	#Ned Scott
	#ThuranX
	#Ace Class Shadow
	#Jay32183
	#Xornok
	#SigmaEpsilon
	#Izhmal
	#Nihonjoe
	#Peregrinefisher
	#Wikipedical
	#Chuq

	Izzy Dot makes second poll change

	''No votes take place in this format''

	I make third poll change, reverting back to 2nd format

	Note: ''I restore Matthew's oppose of "Disambig only when necessary", which was marked as an oppose before the oppose section was created.''

	'''Votes (2nd format, continued)'''
	#Percy Snoodle

	Shannernanner makes fourth poll change, adds oppose sections to the section issue options .

	'''Votes (3rd format)'''
	#Harris000
	#Ac1983fan
	#<s>Nohat</s>
	#Thedemonhog
	#<s>Josiah Rowe</s>
	#<s>''Yaksha''</s>

	I revert back to 2nd format

	'''Votes (2nd format, continued)'''
	#Nohat
	#Josiah Rowe
	#Shannernanner
	#''Jay32183 (vote on second issue)''


	Elonka makes poll change, format and re-definition of sections similar to the 1st version

	''No votes take place with this format''

	Note: ''Jay32183 did strike a comment because of the change, but un-struck it after it was reverted)''

	I revert back to 2nd format

	'''Votes (2nd format, continued)'''
	#Argash
	#EEMeltonIV
	#Elonka
	#Oggleboppiter
	#Anþony
	#JHunterJ
	#AnemoneProjectors
	#Serge Issakov
	#SergeantBolt
	#GhostStalker
	#BlueSquadronRaven
	#Mickiscoole

	Now lets update those lists excluding anyone who later made their vote clear.

	'''1st format'''
	#Marky1981
	#Mnemeson
	#Opark 77
	#Khaosworks

	'''2nd format'''
	#EnsRedShirt
	#Ned Scott
	#ThuranX
	#Ace Class Shadow
	#Jay32183
	#Xornok
	#SigmaEpsilon
	#Izhmal
	#Nihonjoe
	#Peregrinefisher
	#Wikipedical
	#Chuq
	#Nohat
	#Josiah Rowe
	#Shannernanner
	#Argash
	#EEMeltonIV
	#Oggleboppiter
	#Anþony
	#JHunterJ
	#AnemoneProjectors
	#Serge Issakov
	#SergeantBolt
	#GhostStalker
	#BlueSquadronRaven
	#Mickiscoole
	#Yaksha
	#Elonka
	#MatthewFenton
	#Wknight94
	#Percy Snoodle

	'''3rd format'''
	#Harris000
	#Ac1983fan
	#Thedemonhog

	So..

	These editors have not updated or "confirmed" their vote:
	#Harris000
	#Ac1983fan
	#Thedemonhog
	#Marky1981
	#Mnemeson
	#Opark 77
	#Khaosworks

	Now lets see who voted support for "disambig only when necessary" (Regardless of format, we know they supported this. We only don't know what they supported for Disambig title):
	#Harris000
	#Ac1983fan
	#Thedemonhog
	#Khaosworks

	'''The ''only'' editors who didn't vote under the 2nd format and didn't note support for "disambig only when necessary" were:'''
	#Marky1981
	#Mnemeson
	#Opark 77

	This much we know is true from the poll. -- ] 05:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

	:I'm glad it was you and not me who had to do that! -- ] 07:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	::Very nice - and yet I bet it falls on deaf ears. And of course it's ironic to see that Elonka is one of the editors who altered the poll and is now trying to use poll-altering as a reason for appeal. —] (]) 12:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

	== Exactly what is the problem? ==

	At this point, i completely fail to see what the problem is.

	We agree to keep the guildline as it is.

	Guildlines, by definition (and common sense), are followed by default.

	A lot of article moving has already happened, with no evidence of any disruption or damage caused.

	We have agreed to leave the format of disambiguation as is. There is still debate about this, however people have expressed that they don't feel it's a very important issue.

	There is still debate about what to do with wikiprojects that decide to disambiguate.
	*Project stargate and project mortal kombat have given a go ahead to article moving.
	*Project buffyverse and project star trek have not responded.
	*Project lost has not decided to disambiguate (no project-wide consensus, as shown by ] and ])
	*Project 4400 has not decided to disambiguate (no project-wide consensus, as shwon by ])
	In other words, we're arguing about a "what if" problem. Why don't we leave debating about this problem when there actually exists a wikiproject who does have project-wide consensus to disambiguate?

	So unless someone would like to enlighten me on exactly what our problem is, can we just focus on...actually getting things done? As in get articles moved and deal with problems when they actually show up. --] 06:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	:The comments about the Lost and The 4400 projects are interesting - "have not decided to disambiguate" - that's the point of this decision, it isn't up to them to decide - they are part of WikiProject Television, which has decided to go with standard Misplaced Pages naming conventions ("do not disambiguate unless necessary"). Why don't we just start moving the Lost and 4400 episodes and be done with it? -- ] 07:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	::Well, i believe it isn't up to them to decide either. But the point is, the issue we're arguing about it "whether it is up to wikiprojects to decide or not". And i'm just pointing out that the issue is non-existent, since there ''are'' no wikiprojects who have "decided" to do otherwise. So why bother making such a fuss over the hypothetical situation that the lost or 4400 project may "decide" project-wide to not follow these guildlines?
	::Yes, they need to be moved. Should the projects in future agree to not follow naming guidelines, i'd assume another round of discussions/debate/arguments will occur here. But that's currently not the case. --] 08:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	*In general, consensus among a Wikiproject cannot trump consensus among Misplaced Pages as a whole. But since there doesn't appear to be any attempt to do so anyway, the point is pretty much moot. (]) 12:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

	== using (episode) ==

	I just started to fix the ] episode names - adding redirects or fixing disambigs as needed - and found ] as a good example of why I suggested "(episode)" as a disambiguator rather than the show name. Not trying to change the standard now - just pointing out an example. -- ] 08:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

	:But what happens, if another series also has an episode called "The Good Son"? Wouldn't it be easier then to have "The Good Son (Frasier)" and "The Good Son (some other series)"? Rather than "The Good Son (episode, Frasier)" and "The Good Son (episode, some other series). --] 08:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

	::Well, obviously that would be '''The Good Son (Frasier episode)''' and '''The Good Son (Other-series episode)'''. Just like as is done in ] - although you will notice the (Seriesname)/(Seriesname episode) difference of convention here. I have also found some examples with some film names - we have ], ], ] and ] named as such - we only add as much detail as is needed to disambiguate it from other items with the same name, in these examples, nothing for the first title, ], ] and ]. We don't use '''Bedazzled (2000)''' or '''Gossip (Swedish)''' as they are undescriptive. I hope I don't look like I am trying to undo an entire page of discussion but these examples demonstrate what I have been thinking the entire time! -- ] 09:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::hmm, i sort of see your point now. Personally, i don't have much of an opinion on how to disambiguate. Seeing everything (all episodes) using the same format would be nice, but i have a feeling it'll end up taking far more effort getting everyone to agree than it's worth. --] 09:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	:I think what you're running into is the reality that how ''any'' given page is disambiguated - that is, how you determine what should go into the parenthesis - should depend much more on what the other uses of ''that particular name'' are, and much less on how other other pages within that category happen to be disambiguated. But I think most people look at the problem from the other perspective - trying to make every page within a category disambiguated consistently as being the higher priority. The extreme of that view is exemplified by ] - preferring consistency in the disambiguated naming format (Cityname, Statename) even for articles that don't need to be disambiguated (e.g., ]). --] 18:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	::I suppose it comes down to the fact that the ultimate purpose of disambiguation is to differentiate between two things which is actually ambiguous. Although i have to admit trying to get everything to look nice is very tempting =) --] 02:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::That's exactly correct. We just have to remember the priorities. The first priority is to use the most common name. If we can't because that name conflicts with another use of the same name, the second priority is distinguishing from the other uses. Finally, if we can distinguish in a manner that is consistent with the way other articles in the same category are disambiguated, that's a nice bonus. But we should not sacrifice the first two priorities in order to meet the third. --] 06:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::Excellent point, I agree. -- ] 06:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

	== All TV articles should be named this way? ==

	I look through categories regularly at WP but am still learning many things about editing properly. In this specific case, I am looking through tv-related categories and I see many more articles without "(TV series)" than with. Does this mean we should move '''every''' appropriate article to a new name containing "TV series" or other appropriate title suffix or only do so under specific circumstances? -- ] <sup>(]\|])</sup> 22:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	:TV series is added after a series if it shares its name with another Misplaced Pages article. Generally on Misplaced Pages articles are given the simplest name possible. ] 22:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	::] is a good example of a category of episode articles where some are disambiguated and some are not. --] 02:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::CobraWiki is asking about the actual TV series episodes themselves, like ], ], etc. and to that I have to say NO WAY. ], ] and ] are NOT going to get confused with anything else, so they don't need disambiguation. If such a decision got consensus then you might as well split anything TV related off to another site and delete all future TV related articles from Misplaced Pages. (CobraWiki, I know you were just questioning "why not" and not saying that "we should" so I'm not targetting this aggravation at you - but I'm just making sure other people don't get any ideas!) -- ] 04:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	*In general we do not use suffixes unless they're necessary. (]) 10:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	No offence taken, Chuq. Thanks all for the explanations. Looking at it from a "simple is better" point does make perfect sense. -- ] <sup>(]\|])</sup> 08:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	== Looking for anyone who objects to the last poll ==

	I will be looking for anyone who responded to the first poll and feels their contribution was tainted. —] (]) 01:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Let's not keep doggedly looking for reasons ''not'' to do the poll. I favor doing one, as I've stated, so that we can get this absurdly divisive issue behind us. I never even bothered to vote in the last one, given how screwed up it was early on and how the "discussion" deteriorated. And for all of Ned Scott's lengthy analysis about who voted when and with what version of the poll, it kind of proves the opposite point from what he intended. It's impossible for anyone outside the fray to follow, so the whole thing is tainted. Clean poll, clean start, hopefully an early end to this issue. Please. And please, no more posting "you've got to be kidding" messages on my talk page; I'm just arguing for a way to get this silly thing resolved, and I'm not even taking a stance. ] 02:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	*It seems like everyone's who's involved in the first poll has been notified. So we can stop all the speculative analysis of the last poll and see what everyone who voted in it actually has to say. I responed to the first poll and have '''no objections''' to the last poll. --] 02:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	:I didn't notice where people from the first poll were notified. —] (]) 02:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	::I notified those who "votes" could have been misappropriated. Otherwise active people who would have known what was going on were excluded. While I can appreciate the whole "notify everyone" ideal, Wiknight, I didn't find it pratical for my purposes. ]; ]. 02:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::I don't want to qualify it with ''whose "votes" could have been misappropriated''. I'm trying to remove all appearance of impropriety and give every ''support'' a chance to reverse them. (Completely at random, ] was definitely not contacted.) —] (]) 02:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	It doesn't actually matter if anyone was confused by the poll since the poll isn't being used to determine anything. ] 02:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	:"''I didn't notice where people from the first poll were notified''" <<<i was actually referring to you leaving "Tainted poll question" messages on people's talk pages. I assumed all those people were the ones who voted in the first poll. --] 02:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	::I mean I don't see where they were notified ''before'' I just did 15 minutes ago. That's why I did it. —] (]) 02:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	*My vote was not "tainted". It stands as "Don't disambiguate needlessly." --] 03:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	*NO taint for me, either. ] (] \| ]) 03:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	::I have deleted a direct and extremely offensive personal attack in the above post. As I've noted, this has gotten unconscionably ugly, and everyone who read that attack, not to mention any ''admin'' who is participating in this travesty, should be ashamed of himself for not having deleted it already and not having taken some action against the poster for such a clear violation of WP precepts. I'm disgusted. -- ] 04:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::He has been warned. —] (]) 05:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::It's just a little friendly flirtation, guys. Lighten up! ] (] \| ]) 05:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	*]. I voted accordingly... when there is no other subject using the (TV episode) name, there is "no risk of confusion" -- therefore do not disambiguate. No taint. --] 03:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	*Same as the old poll. Don't disambiguate needlessly. --] (] • ]) 03:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	*I have stated my view frequently on this page: avoid unnecessary or preemptive disambiguation. This is in accordance both with general Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and with what I believe to be the previously established consensus on this page. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 03:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	*I don't feel tainted. (Oh dear, that could be worded better.) Izhmal (] \| ]) 04:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	*I voted my say already. Asking me to come back, read the new material and change my vote because, as I read it, I must've been illiterate to vote as I did, is insulting. This was a simple poll, I'm smart enough to understand it, and I believe that everyone else was smart enough to 'get it' as well. Now the 'losers' are opposing it on any grounds they can. This entire issue is sore losers making a mess of wikipedia by abusing the 'constantly changing nature' in the hopes that sooner or later they'll 'Survivor' it. outwit, outlast, outbore. I know that some here will say 'you're incivil'. I say, I'm smart enough to read before voting in a poll. ] 04:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	*My point of view was suitably recognised on the old poll. No need to go over it again unless there is something new to say. -- ] 04:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	*My vote was correctly counted; my only objection to the first poll (which I stated within the discussion) was that within the numerous changes, the meaning of the original votes was temporarily lost, but was shortly fixed to the original meaning. If clarification of my vote is somehow needed, it was disambiguate only when necessary, and when necessary, use the show name only, unless that too is ambiguous, in which case also add "episode." ] 06:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	:: Sorry to have wasted your time. We're trying to get a new poll going, but someone jumped in and invited people back to restate their opinions, but before we'd actually agreed on wording for the new poll. Once we ''do'' have poll wording worked out, which wording everyone agrees with, we'll re-open a formal poll, and invite not just the people who have already participated, but post announcements about the poll in other relevant places as well. --] 06:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::Actually, this was done to show you that a new poll is completely unnecessary. There's only one question that needs to be answered, and you have failed to answer it everytime I have asked. Why is "insert tv series name here" special? If it isn't special then the well reasoned existing guideline should be followed. All Misplaced Pages articles should be at the simplest name possible. You have never said anything that would remotely contradict that. You have stated it would be easier for you and that things would be "prettier", but no contradiction. There is only one way to determine a "common sense exception" and that is by a special case. WikiProjects are a unifying thing, they are not supposed to contradict Misplaced Pages guidelines. Now please, stop grasping at straws by complaining about a poll that doesn't actually matter. ] 06:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	Elonka, everyone who might feel their opinion has not been considered was contacted; ''everyone''. How can you say there ''will'' be a poll when it's been opposed so viamently? Who are you representing when everyone who wants to respond is responding, and ''not'' with a call for a new poll? Also, ''please'' don't tell people they're wasting their time. Like we keep saying, polling is not the be-all/end-all decider. This, right here, is what's good. Simple posts and expressions of opinions. ]. We're not some hokey fictional bureaucracy swayed by petitions and signitures. Elonka, this section is a show of ''real'' consensus. You said you'd accept a clear, clean consensus when you find one. Here it is. ]; ]. 08:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	: Ace, multiple people have called for a new poll (me, Englishrose, PKtm, Josiah Rowe, PeregrineFisher, MatthewFenton, just off the top of my head). I may be the most vocal of the group, but I am definitely not alone. I am also quite confident of getting new voices into the discussion, once we have a "real" poll opened, rather than the twisted one which ran before. Why are you so against a new poll? Are you genuinely afraid that the result would be different, if it were held in a clean and unbiased manner? I would think that if everyone's so sure of their consensus, they'd agree to a new poll, just to put the matter to rest. But instead, this keeps getting dragged out. Let's agree on wording, open a clean poll, and move forward! --] 09:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	:: Josiah Rowe's latest comment on this issue is "''I'm still willing to support another poll if the need for it is shown, but based on the early results from Wknight94's canvassing, I'm not sure that it is''". I'd hardly consider that as "calling for a new poll". --] 09:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	::We have lots and lots of proof that the last poll was completely valid. We have the confirms here, and what I presented at ]. What we are doing is not deciding anything, but rather, we're trying to convince you that this is what actually happened. We don't actually have to do this, we can all leave the discussion as it is. Consensus has been reached, and now we're just being nice in taking the time in trying to help you to understand that. Personally, I think you know darn well that the poll is valid, and you know that you "lost". You need to let this go. -- ] 09:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	::: There is no consensus at all, live with it. You'll find there's plenty of evidence showing the poll was invalid. <small>] (]{{·}} ]{{·}} <span class="plainlinks" style="color:#002bb8"></span>{{·}} ])</small> 09:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	::::What evidence? Only three (3) editors made a vote while the poll wasn't in it's final form and did not list a supporting vote for "disambig only when necessary". We have people coming here and confirming their votes. I believe only two (2) editors feel the poll was invalid. -- ] 09:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	*For the record, my votes were correctly counted and represented in the poll. -- ] 06:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	* "I will be looking for anyone who responded to the first poll and feels their contribution was tainted." - Yes, mine definitely was. The previous poll was a farce with the people who "voted" to suffix only when needed running around moulding the discussion to there liking and also archiving to hide the support for suffix etcetera. <small>] (]{{·}} ]{{·}} <span class="plainlinks" style="color:#002bb8"></span>{{·}} ])</small> 09:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	**This doesn't make any sense. Your vote was oppose. Are you saying that your vote was tainted and you actually meant to support? —] (]) 12:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	::You do realize you are basically saying that you did not oppose "disambig only when necessary"? That is what we are asking. We are directly asking you, Matthew Fenton, did you or did you not vote "oppose" to "disambig only when necessary"? -- ] 09:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	::: That's not what wknight is asking at all, it clearly reads:
	<blockquote>"I will be looking for anyone who responded to the first poll and feels their contribution was tainted."</blockquote>
	::: So please do not twist my words Ned, also just to clarify for you: '''I strongly opposed the notion of suffixing only when necessary.''' - and to clarify further: '''I strongly support leaving a suffix if a WikiProject determines a consensus to keep the suffix, and/or a series of articles is started with a suffix,a nd if an editor wishes to remove said suffix then they require _''consensus''_ on a case-by-case basis.'''. <small>] (]{{·}} ]{{·}} <span class="plainlinks" style="color:#002bb8"></span>{{·}} ])</small> 10:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::Then how was your oppose vote tainted? Was it not counted? (actually, I believe I was the one who restored it after someone else removed it). Your vote was not tainted, it was counted, it was represented in full. If you want to play word games, go ahead, but we both know what is being asked here, and that is to confirm if a vote was or was not properly counted. -- ] 11:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Oh, and, WikiProject Lost has no such consensus in the first place. We've pointed that out too. -- ] 11:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	::: Ned, are you afraid of running a clean poll? Are you afraid that the answer might be different than what you're claiming as consensus? --] 10:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I think he's afraid of the same thing I'm afraid of - repeating this over and over until the project-oriented people run out of technicalities or until they get their own way. The point of this section is to show that the first poll was already "clean". —] (]) 12:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::I am not afraid of a new poll, but to give in to your irrational demands is not something we should do. -- ] 11:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	::Interestingly enough, Elonka, you haven't stated your own personal stand on this yet. IIRC, you voted oppose for always disambiguating. Do you feel your vote got mis-represented on the last poll? --] 13:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::I didn't contact her. This section was an attempt to prove Elonka's assertion that the previous poll was dirty and that people who voted Support were misled by the "tainted poll". If Support people showed up agreeing with Elonka that they were misled by a compromised poll, I would have immediately reversed myself and supported a new poll. That does not appear to be happening though. Contacting Oppose votes and having them show up and say they wanted to change to Support would have actually proven the opposite of Elonka's assertion so I didn't bother doing that. That can also be done if you want to make the first poll weigh even further in the direction of supporting the current guideline though. —] (]) 14:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	* I've been asked to put a note here on whether my view has changed; I still say "disambiguate only when necessary". ] 10:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	* I have also been asked to put a note here. And I still say use disambiguation only when necessary and don't use the word "episode" unless it might be confusing not to. — ]''<font color="green">]</font>''] <small>(])</small> 13:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	*It should be obvious from the reactions above that most people weren't misled by the allegedly-tainted poll. It also appears that most people are in agreement on the original guideline, that we should only disambiguate when necessary. Note that I didn't say "all people", but thankfully we don't need unanimity to have a consensus. I really see no reason to drag this out further by starting a new poll, since we can already tell what the outcome would be. And note that we aren't generally in the habit of polling on guidelines in the first place. (]) 15:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	:* Radiant, I have enormous respect for your opinion, because I've seen how hard you work in guideline-related discussions around Misplaced Pages. But, I must respectfully disagree with you, and hope you'll hear me out as to why we should do a new poll. I have been wanting to invite other people into this discussion. However, when the old poll started becoming a mess, I refrained from extending invitations, because things were getting too chaotic. I would ''still'' like to invite some others, but this discussion is such a tangle right now, I'm not even sure where to point people to, when I send an invite. So, what I would like to do, is start a clean poll, with wording that everyone agrees on ahead of time. Then, I (and anyone else) can issue our invitations and point editors at the new poll, where people can weigh in with a single comment, or, if they want, participate more fully in the discussion. If consensus is clear, it'll show up with the poll. Alternatively, I ''could'' just start issuing my invitations now, but without a clear "collection point", I'm honestly concerned that it will just further add to the chaos, not to mention discouraging people from participation because of the wall of text. I'm also seeing a disturbing trend here of some editors deliberately adding "nonsense" posts, just as a way of making the page even longer and harder to read. That's another reason that I'd like a clean poll, where anyone who comes in can quickly see a summary of the situation and offer their own opinion. As I've said before, I promise I will abide by the consensus of a clean poll. I'm not trying to drag this out with poll after poll after poll, all I want is ''one'' clean and unambiguous version. I think that this is a reasonable thing to ask, and I hope that you'll agree. --] 18:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	::*The interesting thing about most of Elonka's posts here is if you read them out of context, ignore everything else she and others have said previously, what she says seems to make sense. However, if you take the time to keep up, and when you put it in context... In this case, Elonka has come up with yet another new excuse for a new poll: ''I refrained from extending invitations, because things were getting chaotic''. However, Elonka (and others) ''did'' extend invitations to the previous poll. Further, she didn't mention this as a reason to explain why we need another poll until now. I, for one, am not buying it. This is very disruptive. --] 18:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	:::Elonka, if you're referring to me when you say "editors deliberately adding "nonsense" posts, just as a way of making the page even longer and harder to read", you're mischaracterizing my intentions. I have added humorous posts recently, but their only purpose was to lighten the mood and decrease tension on the page. I'm sorry if they've failed to do so in your case. I have no intention of making this page, or this process, any longer and more difficult than it already is. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::The only good reason for inviting more people to a poll is because not enough showed up to adequately represent the community. But 33 people weighed in with ''support'' or ''oppose''. Ask any poll expert and that's a very impressive sampling set - especially on Misplaced Pages. If you'll agree that no vote stacking was involved, the result of nearly 4-to-1 in support should be more than enough for consensus. Without vote stacking, your continuing to invite people would likely just increase the number of opinions but not change the ratio. It would be 36-10 or 43-12 or something. What's the difference? How is that helping anything? It would make it even louder in here, that's for sure - but wouldn't change the outcome. —] (]) 20:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	== A musical view of the situation... ==

	Wknight94's choice of words in his message sparked a thought that led to something I'm sure I'll regret. But anyway, with apologies to ], ], and everyone who reads this page, ]:

	<center>
	Sometimes I feel I've got to<br>
	Run away I've got to<br>
	Get away<br>
	From the arguments we have on this damn page<br>
	The thoughts I've shared<br>
	Seem to go nowhere<br>
	And we've lost all senses<br>
	For we snip and snipe, we can't find consensus<br>

	(chorus)<br>
	Once I ran to you (I ran)<br>
	Now I'll run from you<br>
	This tainted poll you've given<br>
	I give you all my mind can give you<br>
	Take my views and that's not nearly all!<br>
	Oh... tainted poll<br>
	Tainted poll<br>

	Now I know I've got to<br>
	Run away I've got to<br>
	Get away<br>
	The agreement just isn't happening<br>
	It's a god damn shame<br>
	To name every ep the same<br>
	And disambiguate<br>
	When the TV names, they don't have no mate<br>

	(chorus)<br>
	Once I ran to you (I ran)<br>
	Now I'll run from you<br>
	This tainted poll you've given<br>
	I give you all my mind can give you<br>
	Take my views and that's not nearly all!<br>
	Oh... tainted poll<br>
	Tainted poll<br>

	Don't vote twice please<br>
	Can't we all just shoot the breeze<br>
	I've argued so but Elonka says no<br>
	Now I'm going to pack my things and go<br>
	Tainted poll, tainted poll<br>
	Don't vote baby, tainted poll<br>
	Tainted poll...<br>

	(repeat to fade)<br>
	</center>

	<small>—The preceding ] <s>comment</s> song was added by ] (] • ]) 14:39, 15 November 2006.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

	:I vote for Josiah Rowe as the support act for Wikimania 2007! -- ] 04:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	::This can become the first ] --] 04:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	:::Some much needed humor! :D -- ] 06:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	== LOST ==

	Based on the earlier comment that a majority of Lost episodes need to be disambiguated, I checked the list. Currently there are 13 episodes without disambiguation, and 38 with (Lost). Seven of the 38 don't seem to require disamb, so they could be switched over, making 20 without and 31 with. That's 62%, a majority but not anywhere close to almost all of them. This also means that more of the episodes are following the TV naming guideline than aren't - is there currently some problem or confusion with the current state? I haven't seen it. Getting Lost to follow the guideline would require moving seven of the 51 articles - what disruption would occur if this were to happen? I was also unable to find where the lost wikiproject decided that all episode names for the show should be predisambiguated, could someone point me to that decision? --] 16:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	== What's actually being proposed? ==

	I was going to add this to the discussion above, but thought a new section might be cleaner. I've been following this discussion almost since it began, although I haven't commented much. One thing I'm unclear about it is what action is actually being debated? I understand the opinions on both sides, but I'm not sure anymore what's being suggested - a change to the guidelines? Or are people wanting to begin removing disambiguation from the titles of episode articles for Star Trek or Lost (for example), and are waiting until a clearer consensus is reached? There's an awful lot of talk going on, but I'm not clear what would actually happen should some kind of consensus be achieved. --] 20:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	:The most recent issue as I see it is that we already ran a poll until it ran dry. Then Elonka - who was on the "short side" (Oppose) of the consensus - alleged that the poll was modified too often during its running and has been poisoned. I've asked folks on the Support side to make a trip back and affirm their votes or confirm Elonka's suspicion that they were misrepresented. So far, no one has said they were misrepresented. —] (]) 20:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	::No, I understand that...so is the whole discussion now simply about whether or not to have another poll? What course of action is actually being discussed? So many people seem to feel the matter is settled - so have they already begun moving episode articles to remove the disambiguation from the title? Or would that be a breach of etiquette when a few editors are still so opposed, even though they seem to be in the minority? --] 21:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::There was a proposal to change this guideline, but it seems to have failed. So consensus is to keep it as is, and the process of renaming articles not following the guideline has already started, and I hope it continues. I don't see the absence of unanimous agreement as reason to not enforce a guideline. Most people agree that the decision has been made, but those in the minority keep protesting that it didn't happen. --] 21:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::(edit conflict) what Milo said. Even if I'm supposedly too biased, there are two other admins here that seem to be of the same opinion (at least for the question of whether the poll should be re-started). Enough already... —] (]) 22:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	:(edit conflict) I have no idea. I've been in this discussion for quite a while now and i'm afraid i also fail to see what the problem at hand is. We did agree to keep the guildline as it is. We follow guildlines by default, so we've been moving articles. Despite all the "omg it's disruptive", there's so far no complaints or evidence of damage done.

	:As far as i can see, the point we didn't agree on was whether wikiprojects can decide to 'overturn' the guildline if their project agrees to do things differently. The problem is non-existence, since there exists no wikiprojects who have 'agreement' to overturn the guildline. So i have absolutely no idea what the ''problem'' is.

	:As far as i see, some people are holding a slight grudge and refusing to admit their proposal to change the policy failed to gain support, and are now wanting to go through the entire process all over again. --] 23:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	From my point of view (and that of several other editors as well), the poll and "consensus-building" were not conducted in a clean manner, and the poll needs to be re-run. As for what's being discussed, what I'm working on is coming up with wording for the new poll that everyone agrees with, so that we can open the poll, post notices about it in appropriate places around Misplaced Pages, let the poll run for a week or so, and see where we stand. If there's a clear consensus to just enforce ], then the guideline here probably doesn't need any changes, and we set up taskforces to go through and move the thousands of articles ''with'' suffixes, to non-suffix versions. If there's a consensus to allow exceptions in the case of WikiProjects and other good faith discussions on specific series, then we work on adding "exception" wording to the guideline, and do some minor "cleanup" moving in a few series to make them internally consistent. If we're deadlocked, then we look into some other form of dispute resolution, such as taking this to Arbitration.

	As for preferred poll wording, here's my own recommendation right now:

	: == Poll on article naming ==

	:: On a careful review of current Misplaced Pages practices, it is clear that in situations where a television series has individual episodes, that in many cases (a few thousand articles), the editors who created the episode articles chose to use a consistent naming system, where a suffix of (<seriesname>) or (<seriesname> episode) was added to each article title, even when not specifically required by disambiguation rules. (Examples: ], ], ])

	:: As this practice has come to light, some editors have noted that this process creates names that are inconsistent with normal Misplaced Pages ], and as such, these editors believe that those thousands of articles with suffixes, that did not specifically require suffixes for disambiguation, should be moved to non-suffix versions in order to be consistent with Misplaced Pages naming conventions. (Examples: ], ])

	:: Other editors feel that there's nothing wrong with the practice of consistent suffixes, and that it has various advantages, such as consistency in linking, making category listings look cleaner, and providing helpful context in watchlists. They believe that the Naming Conventions guideline should be updated to indicate that this "allow consistent suffixes" method should be included as an acceptable alternative for article naming. Or in other words, per ], "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception"

	:: Other editors feel that the "consistent suffix" method should be generally discouraged, but that it may be warranted as an exception in certain situations. For example, some series have cases where the majority of their episodes already require a suffix for disambiguation reasons, so it might make sense to also add a suffix to the minority of episodes that don't have it, for consistency's sake (]). Other series have gone through multiple title changes (such as ]), and those editors have chosen to use a consistent (<abbreviation> episode) system, such as "(TOS episode)" "(DS9 episode)", etc. (see: ])

	: === Poll ===
	: ====Question #1====
	:: ''When is it appropriate for TV series episode articles to use a suffix (such as (<seriesname> episode)? Should this be reserved strictly for cases where another article already exists by that name (i.e., for disambiguation), or is it acceptable for some series to always use regular suffixes in order to provide for a consistent naming system?''" As with an AfD, each editor can answer with an optional one word answer, plus a sentence or two explaining their opinion, such as: "Always - all series should use this system," "Never - suffixes should only be used when absolutely required for disambiguation", "Sometimes - it should be taken on a case by case basis, depending on the needs of that particular series."''

	: ==== Question #2====
	:: ''In cases where a suffix is to be used, is it better to use (<series>), (<series> episode), or to allow other methods (such as the Star Trek abbreviation system), as long as it is consistent throughout that series? ''

	I'd appreciate outside viewpoints as to whether or not the above is a clear summary, with clear and neutral wording on the poll questions. Thanks. --] 23:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	:I think this wording is clear enough, and I'd like to (again) encourage that we proceed, so that we can put this matter behind us. I, for one, held off from even voting in the previous "polls", given that the text kept getting changed, so I'd appreciate a chance to indicate my thoughts in this structured format. I can't see that it hurts anyone or anything for us to try to get some closure here, hopefully without the name-calling and even obscenities that have been bandied about on this very minor issue. -- ] 23:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	:It looks very good to me {{=)}}, I'd also like to echo that we proceed with this. <small>] (]{{·}} ]{{·}} <span class="plainlinks" style="color:#002bb8"></span>{{·}} ])</small> 23:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Those sound pretty clear to me and eliminate confusion. As I've said before it's important for everyone to be happy with it. However, the main thing is that those planning to vote are happy. I'd suggest those unhappy with the wording make their feelings known now in order to avoid the same problems as before. ] 23:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	"''From my point of view (and that of several other editors as well), the poll and "consensus-building" were not conducted in a clean manner''" <<<i'd like to point out, that of all the people who voted on the last poll, so far no one has expressed the fact that the poll mis-represented their opinion. (see ]) The poll happened, there was no consensus to change the policy. Pages will get moved. Just deal with it and stop trying to stir up more non-existent problems. --] 23:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	: I think having a new poll about the matter is a fantastic idea. I'm not too strong on the subject personally, but I love polls, and public opinoin is always changing. Polls help keep the most recent opinion. Besides, why ruin the hard work of editors without a LONG fair discussion? ] 00:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::Did you just say that this discussion hasn't been long enough? ]; ]. 00:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::I think they did. Izhmal (] \| ]) 00:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I believe that was sarcasm. Never translates well in text. ] 00:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::::On whose part? Ogg? I'd hope so. ]; ]. 01:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::That was my assumption. ] 01:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::It's still not fucking funny. You'd have to be fricken ] or '']'' to even suggest that this discussion's been too short. We've got archives and kb counts that say volumes otherwise. "Longer", he says.. ] (] \| ]) 01:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
	Elonka, <b>IF</b> (big) there is to be a new poll (which I oppose due to lack of evidence that any votes were interpreted incorrectly in the last poll), the wording should include new proposed wording for the guideline, not a philosophical question. One option should be ''status quo - the existing guidelines are fine''. The other options should have revised wording suggestions for the guidelines, and then we can vote "preferred" (2 points), "acceptable" (1 point), or "unacceptable" (-1 points). Each voter can vote for only one preferred option and vote "acceptable" or "unacceptable" for all the rest. I would suggest having the poll take place in two parts. In the first part, which lasts a few days, maybe a week, adding new options and revising existing ones is encouraged. There is no limit to the number of options. In the second part, which starts perhaps after there are no additions/revisions for 24 hours, a typical vote, assuming there are 10 options to choose from, might look like this:
	: preferred: 3; acceptable: 1,5,6,9a. unacceptable: 2,4,7,8,10, 9b. <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki>
	May the most preferred wording win! --] 00:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
	::I am very much against any further polling because the discussion showed that the information used by those wanting to change the guideline was factually incorrect and based entirely on misunderstanding Misplaced Pages guidelines. No amount of polling or arguing will ever change that. ] 00:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::I agree that the reasons for having a new poll are mostly unfounded. However, one reason to have it is so far unrefuted: to end this ridiculous discussion. While having a new poll does not guarantee the end of this ridiculous discussion, if it continues after the new poll there would clearly be sufficent grounds for disciplinary action. Otherwise, there is no end in sight. In the mean time, the broken episode articles are being fixed... --] 00:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::I agree with Serge that the best reason for having a poll is to get this behind us. I think his proposed numerical system might be confusing, though. Perhaps a less detailed version of what Elonka has suggested would be best. I think, however, that her introduction gives too much unnecessary detail and is biased towards her position. Something like this might be more neutral:

	::::: ===Poll on article naming===
	::::: The general practice for ] on Misplaced Pages is for articles to be titled with the simplest form that is not ambiguous with other titles. Parenthetical suffixes are usually used for ]. However, many pages for television episodes have been created with parenthetical suffixes, even though their titles are not ambiguous. Some television program WikiProjects (notably ]) have recommended the use of suffixes such as (<seriesname>) or (<seriesname> episode) as a general practice; others, such as ] have followed the general guidelines.

	::::: Some editors feel that the general disambiguation guidelines should be followed on all television episode articles. Others believe that all television episode articles should have suffixes appended, whether their titles are ambiguous or not. Still others believe that the editors of a particular program should be able to determine what pattern works best for that show.

			__TOC__
	::::Elonka's versions of the questions are OK, I suppose, but I'd rather have an introductory paragraph that gives equal weight to all sides of the argument. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 01:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
	Why would any intro be needed? If you proposed a poll that simply listed the different choices for what you would like the guideline to be, you could explain yourself in the ''Discussion'' section below - I might even go along with it:
	:::''List of proposed guidelines - please support one:''
	:::#''"Disambiguate only when necessary unless WikiProject consensus is to use a different guideline, etc., etc."''
	:::#''"blah blah blah..."''
	:::#''Leave the guideline the way it currently is''
	:::''Discussion:''
	:::...
	That's it. Simple. No room for ambiguity, no room for tampering allegations, etc., etc. If this were done in the first place, maybe we could all be about our lives by now. Instead, everything is phrased in this bizarre could-be-interpreted-14-ways-speak that just leads to chaos.

			== ] ==
	That being said, I just realized that Josiah Rowe is also an admin - so that makes ''four'' admins and counting who think this has gone on way way way too long.
	—] (]) 01:55, 16 November 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)

			== Episode title disambiguations ==
	: Josiah, overall I like your wording. I'd like to add a couple phrases though. I've included an update here, with my additions in italics:

			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>
	: ===Poll on article naming===
			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>
	::The general practice for article naming on Misplaced Pages is for articles to be titled with the simplest form that is not ambiguous with other titles. Parenthetical suffixes are usually used for ]. However, ''on a recent review of the situation, it was discovered that'' many ''thousands of'' pages for television episodes have been created with parenthetical suffixes, even though their titles are not ambiguous. Some television program WikiProjects (notably ] ''and ]'') have recommended the use of suffixes such as (<seriesname>) or (<seriesname> episode) as a general practice; others, such as ] have followed the general guidelines.
			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)
	:: Some editors feel that the general disambiguation guidelines should be followed on all television episode articles, ''and that the thousands of existing suffix articles are "wrong" and need fixing''. Others believe that all television episode articles should have suffixes appended, whether their titles are ambiguous or not. Still others believe that the editors of a particular program, ''like with a WikiProject,'' should be able to determine what pattern works best for that show.
			::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 ==
	: How's that? --] 02:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

			Should disambiguating by region (state/province/municipality, etc.) be allowed when disambiguating by year, country or genre is not appropriate?
	::I don't see why we need to mention "thousands of articles". Has it even been established that there ''are'' thousands of articles that would need renaming? We know that many series weren't in compliance, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a preponderance of episode articles for each series would need renaming. Also, remember that many series (such as British television series) have only a handful of episodes. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 02:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

			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 ].
	Guys, I'd just like to say here and now that I hope you don't give in to Elonka. Doesn't it set a bad example? "Hey, kids, whine and whine, you'll get your way!" Y'know? ]; ]. 02:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
	:You know what, Ace? That's simply ugly, and personal, and uncalled for. Not only you need to review ], but so do all of the admins participating here (as Wknight has enumerated for us). Because frankly, every single one of them should have been jumping up and down on you for such blatant incivility. -- ] 02:24, 16 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"> — ] (]) 23:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)</span>
	::You know, Izzy Dot is one thing, and I'd agree with you in his case, but this just too much. "Anyone who disagrees with us is incivil. Don't attack me!" Fine, fine. I'll remove myself. Cute tactics, BTW. ]; ]. 02:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

			:That sounds acceptable to me if the standard disambiguation options did not adequately define each show. - ] (]) 08:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::Everyone here is getting pretty aggrevated. Jumping up and down at all is a bad idea that will lead to more fighting. And don't complain about the admins reactions when it's only been 18 minutes since the post you're complaining about went up. ] 02:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

			== What's a series and what's a program: looking for a clear definition ==
	::Particularly when there have been so many comments that every time the admin tries to post he gets an edit conflict! :^)

			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.
	::These were some of the things I tried to post in the last 20 minutes or so:

			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:
	::(to ACS, edit conflict with PKtm) But it's not just Elonka. She's by far the most vocal supporter of a new poll, but other editors such as Matthew Fenton and PKtm have also expressed dissatisfaction. Sure, there's a bit of "the squeaky wheel gets the grease", but I'm sufficiently confident in the existing consensus that I don't think another poll will change anything — except that it may finally end this interminable debate. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 02:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

			Not a series - ], ], ], other ones I forgot probably
	::(to PKtm, edit conflict with ACS) PKtm, please stop lecturing us on admin duties. Each Wikipedian has an equal duty to make his or her own judgment on what behavior is unacceptable. I have, for example, rebuked Izzy Dot for his incivil comments. However, I don't think that ACS's comment here was particularly out of line. His description of Elonka's ... persistent argumentation ... is blunt and less than diplomatic, but hardly a personal attack in my judgment. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 02:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

			''Probably'' not a series (dunno for sure) - ], ]
	I'd like to confirm that I haven't changed my mind since the last poll that I voted in. --] 02:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

			Probably a series - ], ], ]
	Well, i for one, am starting to agree with this "''I'd just like to say here and now that I hope you don't give in to Elonka. Doesn't it set a bad example?''". A poll is NOT needed. End of story. The issue was resolved through a good LONG, and with the exception of Izzy's comments, CIVIL discussion. The problem is being fixed. I find this entire 'delay tactics' as just being immature. But of course, someone who holds civility and good faith in such high regard, and aspires to be an adminstrator (and therefore a role-model to other editors) couldn't possibly be doing this on purpose.

			IDK - ], ], ], ] ] ] 18:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
	So, Elonka, if you have any geunine problems with what's happening here, go and take this up to mediation, or arb, or whereever people go to settle disputes. Here, we've got a job to do - that is, get a lot of articles moved. You're insistence of there being a problem when non exists is not helping, at all. --] 08:05, 16 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.

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

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:

Television

This 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: