| Revision as of 16:04, 21 November 2006 editHiding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,138 edits →Requests for a new poll: no need← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:55, 3 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,616 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 18) (botTag: Replaced | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header|search=yes|WT:TV-NC|WT:NC-TV|WT:TV-NAME}} | |||
| '''NOTE:''' this talk page is currently being archived very quickly due to extensive ongoing conversation. | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| For earlier discussion in this RfC, please see ] and ]. | |||
| {{WikiProject Television}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Shortcut|]}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television/Navigation}} | |||
| {{Archive box|* ] - June 2003 – August 2004<br /> | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| * ] - August 2004 – September 2005<br /> | |||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
| * ] - September 2005 – September 2006<br /> | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
| * ] - October–November 2006 | |||
| |counter = 18 | |||
| * ] - November 2006 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(60d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| ---- | |||
| == Answer this question == | |||
| This is directed at those who do not want to follow the standard "disambiguate only when necessary". So far it has been ignored every time I have asked this question. What makes the articles on "Lost" or "Star Trek" special compared to other TV series on Misplaced Pages? What makes a TV episode article special compared to any other Misplaced Pages article? If these questions cannot not be answered, then you have no point. You cannot call for a "common sense exception" when no special case exists. Please also note that the question is not "What makes the editors special?" The fact that the editors have handled the articles differently does not make the article special. ] 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Excellent question. Of course, no one is answering it. I've posted a slightly modified version at ] where we have a similar situation, except there those who favor predisambiguation are in the majority. --] 18:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Completely ignored again. This is the only question that matters and those calling for an exception won't answer it. Therefore, this cannot be anything but a filibuster. ] 06:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I think I've already answered this several places, but to repeat: I believe that WikiProjects should have the right to decide on guidelines for their sphere of influence. This includes naming issues. I also believe that it makes sense that if a series already has the majority of its episodes with suffixes, to add the suffixes to the minority of other episodes, to keep everything consistent. --] 10:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: And i think it's been explained in many places by many people why WikiProjects don't have special power. | |||
| ::::Not to mention, the fact that there currently exists no WikiProjects who wish to exercise such a right, should it exist (which it currently doesn't.) --] 13:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You have not addressed what makes ''the shows themselves'' different, unique, or somehow exempt from the guideline as it is. If the WikiProjects have a valid and well-reasoned argument for their decision, they should be able to present it here and have it ratified by the wider consensus. Otherwise, the series should adhere to the guidelines created for that purpose. -] 02:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That didn't answer my question at all. In fact, you answered the question I specifically said was irrelevant. ] 03:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::WikiProjects are points of collaboration, like "super talk pages", and are not their own closed system. I've said this many times in other discussions, WikiProjects are points of collaboration first and groups of people second. Also, by just editing an article related to the scope of a WikiProject, that technically makes that person apart of that ''collaborative effort'', which is all the WikiProject is. It's just a form of organization, '''NOT''' a form of government or authority. Being in a WikiProject doesn't give one any more or less of a right to have a say in those articles. It would be a very bad thing for WikiProjects to have such authority. That being said, a WikiProject can be used to organize discussion to form consensus, but that would be that discussion that caused the change, with the WikiProject being the tool to reach that consensus. (also, as others have said, WP:LOST has not had such a discussion where it formed it's own consensus on this issue, in the first place). -- ] 03:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::*The main argument against the suggestion that WikiProjects should have jurisdiction over the articles in their scope, is the fact that the entire concept of "jurisdiction" doesn't exist on Misplaced Pages, since everyone can edit everything and ] a bureaucracy. This may not be the most practical approach but it is the most wiki. (]) 16:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* My opinion is that if a WikiProject wants to come up with slightly different ways of handling the articles within their sphere of influence, and they are not violating any policies in doing so (note I'm saying policies, not guidelines), then I see no problem with that. Policies of course should be enforced, but guidelines are ''recommendations''. And as ] says, ''Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.'' For example, at the ''Lost'' WikiProject, it was decided to limit the number and type of External links that can be on an episode article. Further, it was decided that plot summaries should be limited to a certain number of words. There's also a strict rule among the ''Lost'' articles about the inclusion of speculative information, ''even'' if it's sourced. These kinds of things make sense for the ''Lost'' articles, even though they are not in strict adherence with Misplaced Pages's "global" guidelines. It would be a colossal waste of time if every single one of these guidelines needed to be debated both at the ''Lost'' level, ''and'' at the global level, especially because it wouldn't make sense to do that. For example, if the limit on External Links came up at a global level, of course there would be a hue and cry about limiting those links, because it wouldn't make sense to put strict limits on them in ''all'' articles, it's ''just'' something that the ''Lost'' system needs, which is why that kind of thing is best debated at the lowest level necessary (in this case, the WikiProject), rather than in the global guideline arena. A key benefit of a WikiProject, ''is'' to bring together the editors that are most familiar with a specific set of subject matter, so that they can coordinate work on the articles related to that subject, and come up with a consistent look and feel and set of rules. --] 02:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*"Colossal waste of time" is a great way to describe this situation you've created, Elonka. As far as I'm concerned, this whole thing is a perfect example of why guidelines should be followed. If Lost followed the guidelines, there's no need to debate this at either level. At all. When little groups think they need an exception, lots of time is wasted on something that would have no benefit if it passed. I'd like to see all TV shows follow the guideline - we can either have this discussion once at the top level, or have this discussion many many many times at the low level (and waste orders of magnitude more time). And for the record, I'm fine with exceptions being made to the guidelines for common sense reasons. But I have yet to hear a common sense reason why Lost "needs" different naming from every other TV show. Nor why only those familiar with Lost are capable of participating in a discussion about how Lost episodes should be named. I think exceptions can and should be made, just not because a small group of editors doesn't feel like following them. --] 02:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Elonka, if those aspects of the ''Lost'' WikiProject's guidelines came up in a broader context, I would hope that editors from the WikiProject would be invited to explain their reasoning. And if they did, that reasoning would be evaluated on its own merits, and any exceptions to general Misplaced Pages guidelines could be evaluated on their own merits. If the reasoning presented is strong enough, I'm sure it would convince a consensus of non-WikiProject Wikipedians that there was a good case for making that exception. | |||
| ::::::But if that larger group of Wikipedians were to reject the arguments of the WikiProject — or if the WikiProject members failed to explain their reasoning — I would hope and expect that the lesser guideline (and WikiProject guidelines ''are'' lesser than Misplaced Pages-wide guidelines) would be overturned. You're fond of quoting the sentence "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" from ]. But the judgement of what constitutes "common sense" and when "the occasional exception" is to be taken is up to a general consensus of Wikipedians. Such a consensus has '''opposed''' the exception in this case. | |||
| ::::::WikiProjects are merely a focus for improvement of articles in specific areas. They are not infallible. When the general community suggests that a WikiProject has erred in its guidelines, it is appropriate for the WikiProject to engage the community at large, and for both sides to listen to each other. Despite your protestations to the contrary (and the occasional descent of this debate into impatience and incivility), the argument for explicitly including exceptions ''has'' been listened to, and has been rejected. Later tonight I think I'll try to put together some suggestions for how we can go forward from here, since the current situation is obviously unsatisfactory for all parties. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 02:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Disputed tag == | |||
| Sorry for another section, guys, but this is important. TEMPT (The Elonka/Matthew/Pktm trio) claim the policy is disputed. This, I will gladly have a vote on. You can't make a claim or use a tag on the mainpage without valid reasoning. This has, as they say, ''gone too far'' and is "]". ]; ]. 19:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :We don't need ] becoming an edit war. As long as there are around 30 edits per day to this talk page, how can we call it not disputed? I'll defer to someone else if a better reasoning is available (like the policy the tag points to is inactive) but let's not end up with 3RR threats and blocks over a tag which seems pretty accurate to me. —] (]) 20:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :;'''disputed''' | |||
| :# Argued; not ], ] upon, or ]. | |||
| :A definition of disputed. <small>] (] <small>•</small> ] <small>•</small> <span class="plainlinks" style="color:#002bb8"></span> <small>•</small> ])</small> 20:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Now, you see, that right there would upset me. Still, I'll try to take the high road, like Ned. ]; ]. 20:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Actually, for purposes of the tag, policy dispute is defined at ]. I'm not convinced that this really meets that definition, but I don't really see what that matters. After all, what does the disputed tag really mean? The guideline still stands while this discussion is going on. --] 21:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Er, guys, voting on whether or not there is a dispute is oxymoronic. Let's not do that. The tag doesn't in fact do any harm for now. If we are agreed that this page is consensual, then a handful dissenters do not a dispute make; while we are still debating about this page, it is not unreasonable to claim a dispute exists. Let's just leave it in place for a few days. (]) 22:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **The tag is just a way to jam a foot in the door as it continues to close on this issue, and nothing more. It's painfully clear that the two or three editors who are disputing will continue to be in dispute, regardless of consensus. Just because they disagree doesn't mean they get to throw a fit about this. -- ] 00:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: By the sheer quantity of reverts, it's clear that there's a dispute. The tag should stay. --] 01:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::There ''is'' a dispute, but it's not on the guideline (see below). -- ] 01:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| It is my understanding that the guideline itself is not in dispute, but how we interpret exceptions to guidelines, which is not even commented on the guideline page. The dispute is taking place on the talk page, and the only change to the project page would be the inclusion of an example of exception. Why are we tagging the project page with a dispute tag? I know it's very tempting to "give in" right now, but this is no different from the other tactics that have been used. Lets not let ourselves be played like this. -- ] 01:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You guys are a riot. Here's a whole section disputing whether there is a dispute, thereby proving that there ''is'' a dispute. LOL. —] (]) 02:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The guideline isn't in dispute. I believe Elonka has even said that. Those who are opposing wish to have an "exception" to the guideline, and then have that (or some other example) exception listed. If they feel it's an exception, then wouldn't that mean that the actual guideline itself is not in dispute? There is a related dispute to this guideline in how we apply it and how we apply exemptions from it. -- ] 03:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I don't think i'm overdoing it by saying if just one single editor stopped claiming there was a dispute, this entire issue would be silent in a day. --] 02:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I have protected the page in response to the edit war about whether or not the dispute exists. (]) 08:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == No disambiguation unless necessary == | |||
| It's confusing and it's long standing practise. Misplaced Pages doesn't standardise for the sake of it, per arb-com, and it doesn't confuse readers. We only disambiguate when we have to. ] <small>]</small> 23:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think you meant "''not'' confusing," Steve. ]; ]. 01:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Strawpoll: Is Elonka filibustering? == | |||
| Poll closed. . This is an inappropriate topic for a straw poll, and is making the issue too personal. Personal issues don't belong on a guideline talk page. (]) 08:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Bravo, Radiant! Thank you. -- ] 14:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you, Radiant. While some people have gotten frustrated with Elonka's comments, I am grateful that someone is arguing for a more open, fair, and consistentl y transparant process. I have never taken part in this particular debate, and haven't been editing LOST articles for very long, but I just spent the last hour reading through this entire discussion and there is just way too much meanness and accusations. Elonka's statements have often been misconstrued and insulted in a hostile and unconstructive way. This whole conversation was completely unconstructive. I agree completely with Elonka's statement that this kind of nonsense scares the hell out of newer editors, it was a long time before I started editing LOST pages, because LOST folx can get so hateful about things. I agree with her that there should be a new, clean, well-advertised discussion since this seems to be a hot issue. It will provide closure and nobody can cry foul play. I was unaware of the discussion when it happened, I would like a place to give my opinion now that I know about this. ] 16:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::A good place to give your opinion is regarding the move request for Lost articles just below. --] 16:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Programs needing to be moved == | |||
| Just reposting the list for everyone's convience since i'm about to achieve the top half of this talk page. --] 03:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>stargate - ] ''(Project informed on 10/11)''</s>''done''<br> | |||
| *<s>lost - ]</s> ''just waiting for speedy deletion requests to *come through, otherwise done''<br> | |||
| *star trek - ]<br> | |||
| *buffy and angel - ] ''(Project informed on 10/11)''<br> | |||
| *<s>4400 - ]</s> ''just waiting for a speey deletion request to come through, otherwise done''<br> | |||
| *<s>some mortal combat series - ]</s> ''(done)''<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> | |||
| *<s>]</s> (done)<br> | |||
| *<s>]</s> ''(false alarm, the disambiguation was actually needed on torchwood episodes)''<br> | |||
| *]<br> | |||
| *<s>]</s>''false call''<br> | |||
| *]<br> | |||
| *]<br> | |||
| *<s>]</s> ''done''<br> | |||
| *<s>] admin assitance needed for ] otherwise </s> ''done''<br> | |||
| *]<br> | |||
| *<s>] seems to have an issue over what the actual titles should be for episodes that haven't aired in North America</s> (''done'')<br> | |||
| *]<br> | |||
| *]<br> | |||
| *]<br> | |||
| *<s>]</s> ''done''<br> | |||
| *]<br> | |||
| *]<br> | |||
| *<s>]</s>''done''<br> | |||
| *<s>]</s>''done''<br> | |||
| *<s>]</s>''done''<br> | |||
| *<s>]</s>''done''<br> | |||
| *<s>]</s>done<br> | |||
| *<s>]</s>''(done)''<br> | |||
| *<s>]</s>''false alarm''<br> | |||
| *<s>]</s>done<br> | |||
| *<s>]</s>''(done)''<br> | |||
| *<s>]</s>done<br> | |||
| *<s>]</s> ''(done)'' --] 00:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)<br> | |||
| *<s>]</s>''(done)''<br> | |||
| *<s>]</s>''false alarm''<br> | |||
| *<s>]</s>''(done)''<br> | |||
| *<s>]</s>''(done)''<br> | |||
| *<s>]</s>''(done)''<br> | |||
| *<s>]</s>''(done)''<br> | |||
| *<s>]</s>''(done)''<br> | |||
| *<s>]</s> ''(done)''<br> | |||
| *<s>]</s>''(done)'' | |||
| == Moving lost articles == | |||
| Lost articles are being moved, just like the episode articles for all the series listed above. | |||
| Most of the pages have already been moved. For the ones which haven't, i had them tagged for speedy deletion. But some of them were overturned by other editors who stated they could find no consensus for the move. | |||
| I've listed these at ], but decided this was the most relevant place to place the discussion. (note, request move tags have been placed on the three articles, but the "discuss" link on them points here) | |||
| ===Requested move=== | |||
| *] → ] | |||
| *] → ] | |||
| *] → ] | |||
| '''Reason''' - From this guildline page "''For an article created about a single episode, add the series name in parentheses only if there are other articles by the same name''" and by "''Disambiguation in Misplaced Pages and other Wikimedia Foundation projects is the process of <u>resolving ambiguity</u>''" (from ]). ] currently follow these existing guildlines except for these three. | |||
| ====Survey==== | |||
| Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> | |||
| *'''Support''', per ] and the discussion there. -- ] 03:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - per guidelines. Nothing makes lost more special than any other TV series, especially when the rest of the lost episodes already follow naming conventions. --] 03:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - per nom --] (]) 06:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''; however, if there is substantial objection I see no harm in delaying this, particularly if we're going to seek mediation here. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 06:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong oppose'''. Count me as someone with a "substantial objection". The ''Lost'' articles have already been debated at the ''Lost'' WikiProject. Further, the majority of articles in the series already have suffixes anyway, so it makes sense to have suffixes on the remaining minority of articles, to keep everything consistent. --] 07:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This goes against what the nom claims, that these three are the only three with suffixes. --] (]) 07:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, that's not what i claimed. But Elonka's statement is indeed misleading. The current guildline says to "disambiguate ONLY when needed". This is the guildlines that all lost articles, except for these three, follow. These three do not follow the guideline because they are disambiguated when there is absolutely no need for the disambiguation. I linked to the ] in my nomination so people could click on it and see/judge for themselves. --] 07:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::"''The Lost articles have already been debated at the Lost WikiProject.''" As a participant at WikiProject Lost, I find that statement rather.. odd. The only debate that took place was the one that lead into this current debate. The mediation on Lost episode articles never talked about episode titles. So where was this discussion? Was there reasonable rational for this explanation? How many people were involved in the discussion? -- ] 07:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And my question still goes unanswered. ] ] 07:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strongly oppose''' — Why would we go against a consensus and make the articles un-unified? There is a consensus to append a suffix to Lost articles, pending any consensus to remove the suffix it remains. <small>] (] <small>•</small> ] <small>•</small> <span class="plainlinks" style="color:#002bb8"></span> <small>•</small> ])</small> 11:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Please point out where this consensus has been established; I have so far been unable to find it. (]) 11:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***Indeed, Matthew, you have claimed this many times. Please provide a link to the discussion that resulted in this consensus. Otherwise, we seem to have a consensus here to stick to the guildline (]) --] 12:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Support''': Per my 20 zillion words above. —] (]) 15:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Per ] and ]. --] 16:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. The reasons given for an exception to the guideline aren't convincing to me. --] 17:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per all of my previous comments (somewhere in the archives by now, I imagine). ···]<sup>] · <small>] <font color="darkblue">to</font> ]]o]</small></sup> 19:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' No reason has been presented that these articles should have an exception. The numerous reasons why editors want exceptions aren't relevant. ] 20:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Regardless of previous discussions on this page regarding a subset of Misplaced Pages articles, ] ''is'' a product of consensus applicable to ''all'' Misplaced Pages articles. --]] 03:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Preemptive disambiguation continues to be a Bad Idea. ] 05:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong support''' per naming discussions at Naming conventions. -- ] 21:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong support''' - consensus has been reached here to disambiguate only when necessary. Lost does not merit an exception to the guideline. -] 01:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong support''' - By my count, only about 60% of Lost article names need disambiguation, so I'm not sold on "might as well DAB them all". And after all this discussion, still nobody has given a reason why Lost is different than any other show (or any other article) and should be disambiguated. I'm also not convinced that a wikiproject has the authority to usurp guidelines that are wikipedia-wide. Lost is a perfect example of why throwing out the naming convention and letting each show decide individually is a ''terrible'' idea - instead of finishing this debate and having a final decision and being done, we can have this same discussion repeated for every single individual TV show. So at what point can we move these last three Lost episodes? --] 13:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **The articles are listed at ]...which is like...handles moves the way the AfD process handles deletions. I believe this will be open for 5 to 7 days (when it'll be listed at ]), and i'd assume an admin will come at the end and 'close' it by performing the nessasary moves. (Discussions for Requset Moves normally happen on the talk page of the articles involved, but given the recent and ongoing RfC here, i thought it was more appropriate to have the discussion/survey here.) --] 13:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ====Discussion==== | |||
| Add any additional comments | |||
| *I wish to point out that "we should keep it the way it is for convenience" is not a valid argument if someone can be found willing to make the change. I note that Elonka and Ned Scott dissent over whether this issue was discussed on ]. I've found a debate on its "guidelines" page that involves several editors also active here, and does not seem to have the claimed consensus to "always use suffixes". So I would say that yes, it was discussed, but no, it was not concluded. If I'm missing something here, please give me a link. (]) 09:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Mediation anyone? == | |||
| Great, now we have person A and person B edit warring over what person C said while a mini-edit war is breaking out on the main page over whether the edit war on the talk page is a dispute. | |||
| Mediation anyone? —] (]) 04:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't know if there's anything to "mediate". The actual issue of the episode naming is pretty much complete, and now we're just in an argument trying to convince a small few who are still kicking and screaming. -- ] 04:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Absolutely not. There's no problem here to "mediate", it's just one editor deciding there is a problem when none exists. Elonka said before she's not debating the current guildline - her problem is with exceptions. And as i pointed out before, exceptions aren't even a problem - there doesn't even exist a wikiproject or other group who's wanting articles all disambiguated. | |||
| ::It seems at the end, Elonka's problem comes down to the entire lost business. She wants the lost episodes diambiguated. Because...tons of TV series have been moved, none of them have caused problems and she's ignored all of that. Then she and Matthew Fenton noticed lost episodes are also being moved, and starts making a big deal out of it. Including removing speedy tags, proclaiming lack of consensus and controversy, and leaving misleading notes on other editor's talk pages. --] 04:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that mediation might be helpful at this point. Elonka and one or two other editors want a new poll — which I've commented on ] — but there's clearly no consensus for that. It's equally clear that Elonka isn't going to yield in her belief that the guideline does not have consensus. Perhaps both sides need to put their opinions aside for a moment, swallow some pride and try mediation. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 05:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::You've all started a poll about whether Elonka is filibustering (FWIW, a poll with no obvious outcome either way is not particularly helpful, do you think?). Mediation is the anti-filibuster so I'm surprised you're not all signing up. —] (]) 05:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Isn't mediation...like...non binding? So it's just a matter of some outside party coming in and trying to sort things out. Radiant's already been doing that - trying hard to calm things down and sort things out as a neutral outsider. I don't see mediation getting us anywhere, apart from blowing this thing even more disproportionarily big. --] 05:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] is a more formal outlet and seems to have worked well for everyone at ]. The problem was they missed this issue. Radiant was being helpful coming here but, in the less official capacity, he can be dismissed and labelled "biased" as Elonka seems to have done with . I won't speak for her but hopefully Elonka would agree that a ruling at ] would be binding. I know I would. If not, the next step would be ] and I don't think anybody wants to go there. I sure as hell don't - I've got much better ways I could spend my time. —] (]) 06:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *For the record, while I'm not an official mediator, I came to this page because of an explicit request (by Elonka) at the village pump that some outsider looks at it. One of the facts of life is that, if one asks for a neutral comment, there is the possibility that the comment may in fact disagree with you. | |||
| *Also, I note there is some hostility on both sides - this is perhaps understandable given the length of the discussion and that people may feel tired of their opponents, but I wish both parties would take a step back and take a deep breath and realize that article naming in an encyclopedia isn't the end of the world either way. ], anyone? (]) 08:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Summary of discussion== | |||
| I've spent the last several hours pulling this together. It is a summary of all opinions that have been offered in this debate, since the RfC started on October 30. The only names here are those who actually came in to the debate and ''said'' something about the naming issue, even if it was just a few words. If all they did was pop in to say "Support" or "Oppose" (no matter which "side" they were on), I have not included them on this list. If all they did was toss in unrelated comment, such as only about the poll, but not what their ''stand'' was on the issue ''in'' the poll, I have not included their names here either. When/if sockpuppets are confirmed later, their opinions can be crossed out. | |||
| Note: There are a lot of diffs here. If anyone feels that a particular editor's position was misrepresented, feel free to update it, and include a supporting diff. And if I missed anyone, please ]. There's a lot of detail here, and I'm human, and I may have missed something, or gotten a diff tangled up. In such cases, please feel free to add/correct things as necessary. --] 06:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * {{user|Ace Class Shadow}} - Only disambiguate when necessary, and then include the year. | |||
| * {{user|AnemoneProjectors}} - Use disambiguation only when necessary | |||
| * {{user|Anþony}} - Minimum disambiguation required, no exceptions | |||
| * {{user|Argash}} - Suffix adds needed context to the article, and is the preferred method. Redirects are a fallback position. | |||
| * {{user|BlueSquadronRaven}} - Don't disambiguate needlessly | |||
| * {{user|Brian Olsen}} - Disambiguate only when necessary | |||
| * {{user|Cburnett}} - Disambiguate as necessary, but make sure to include lots of redirects | |||
| * {{user|Chuq}} - Disambiguate only when necessary. All series should use the same format. | |||
| * {{user|Elonka}} - Flexibility. For certain series, suffixes make sense. Let the WikiProjects decide what works best for their own sphere of influence.. . | |||
| * {{user|EnsRedShirt}} - All television episodes should use a single unified format, which includes the series name | |||
| * {{user|Jay32183}} - Only disambiguate when necessary. Keep article titles simple. No exceptions. . | |||
| * {{user|JHunterJ}} - disambiguation and article titles are not group mechanisms | |||
| * {{user|Josiah Rowe}} - Only disambiguate when necessary . Consistency should not be "fetishized". . Okay to "vary by series", preferably as a fallback position if no consensus emerges Star Trek articles are "broken" | |||
| * {{user|Khaosworks}} - Don't disambiguate needlessly | |||
| * {{user|Marky1981}} - Appending "episode" makes things more clear | |||
| * {{user|MatthewFenton}} - Suffixes are a case of article naming, not just disambiguation | |||
| * {{user|Milo H Minderbinder}} - Disambiguate only when necessary | |||
| ** <small>Note: Account created October 20, 2006</small> | |||
| * {{user|Mnemeson}} - Agrees with Marky1981 (append "episode" to articles) | |||
| * {{user|Ned Scott}} - Disambiguation only when needed. Flexibility is good, but neither Lost nor Star Trek have valid exemptions. | |||
| * {{user|Netoholic}} - Let WikiProjects decide | |||
| * {{user|Nihonjoe}} - Disambiguate only when necessary | |||
| * {{user|Nohat}} - Preemptive disambiguation is always a bad idea. | |||
| * {{user|Percy Snoodle}} - support existing dab rules, which should be consistently applied | |||
| * {{user|Peregrinefisher}} - Set a threshhold such that if a certain number of articles in a series are already disambiguated, the rest should get suffixes as well | |||
| * {{user|Radiant!}} - Disambiguate only when necessary. Exceptions are allowed, but do not need to be defined in the guideline. | |||
| * {{user|Riverbend}} - Consistent suffixes, and a series should be able to choose whether or not to make that exception to the general guidelines | |||
| * {{user|Rrfayette}} - "Disambiguate only when needed", but allow exceptions | |||
| * {{user|Serge Issakov}} - Disambiguate only when required | |||
| * {{user|Shannernanner}} - Only use disambiguation when it is needed . | |||
| * {{user|SigmaEpsilon}} - single, unified format for all episode titles. | |||
| * {{user|Steve block}} - Only disambiguate when necessary | |||
| * {{user|Tango}} - Stargate articles use suffixes for consistency | |||
| * {{user|TobyRush}} - A universal standard is good. Agree with Josiah Rowe and Nohat and supports Cburnett's suggestion Justifiable exceptions to guidelines are allowed, and should be debated by the individual shows involved | |||
| * {{user|Wikipedical}} - Disambiguate only when necessary. | |||
| * {{user|Wknight94}} - Enforce the "disambiguation only when needed" guideline as policy, no exceptions | |||
| * {{user|Yaksha}} - Only disambiguate when necessary, although would possibly consider an exception appropriate if the vast majority of episodes in a series already require it . WikiProjects have no special authority. | |||
| ===Additional comments=== | |||
| If you have any comments about the above summary, please add it in this section. --] 06:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Well I appear on the list so you must be aware of my comments. So I must ask, why haven't you answered my question clearly marked "Answer this question". It's the only thing that actually matters in resolving this issue. ] 06:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've also noticed you've misrepresented what I said. I did not say no exceptions ever. I actually pointed out that you have not presented a reason that deserves an exception. Which is why I made the section ] where I call for you to present a case that would deserve an exception. Basically, exceptions are made on the special needs of the articles not the special needs of the editors. ] 08:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Your summary proves only two things Elonka. The first is that we have had more than enough people participating in this discussion. The second is that there's a clear supermajority to disambiguate only when needed. The only point of concern is exceptions - which some people say to allow and others say to not allow. | |||
| But as i've already pointed out, it's a non-existent problem. We have no wikiprojects wanting exceptions. Why bother argueing over a hypothetical then? And i forgot to ask, what is the purpose of this Elonka? --] 06:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Elonka, thank you for providing that summary. I'll assume good faith and accept that it's by and large a fair representation of the views stated on this page. The obvious conclusion from this summary is that whether or not we have a true consensus, there is certainly a supermajority in favor of "disambiguate only when necessary". At this point it might be useful to point out this quotation from ]: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what does mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'. You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| :By that definition, this looks like a consensus to me. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 09:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I am inclined to agree that this constitutes a consensus (which, by definition, need not be unanimity). More importantly, we have an existing guideline (to disambiguate only when necessary) which can be assumed to have prior consensual support, and there certainly is no consensus to overturn that, or to add Elonka's exception clause. (]) 09:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| There are several other people who just added their name next to support or oppose in the first poll without further explanation. I'm not sure why they are being ignored in the list above so I'll provide it here. Please move it up next to the other list. You can qualify it some way if you like but I usually interpret such votes to mean "per everyone above" so I don't see why they should count less: | |||
| :'''Support without further explanation:''' | |||
| :*{{user|Izzy Dot}} Elonka is alleging sockpuppetry but that's unproven. There must be a colorful diff in there somewhere for this user as well. | |||
| :** <small>Note: Account created October 21, 2006</small> | |||
| :*{{user|Thedemonhog}} | |||
| :*{{user|ThuranX}} | |||
| :*{{user|Izhmal}} | |||
| :** <small>Note: Account created October 21, 2006</small> | |||
| :*{{user|Harris000}} | |||
| :*{{user|Ac1983fan}} | |||
| :*{{user|GhostStalker}} | |||
| :'''Oppose without further explanation:''' | |||
| :*{{user|EEMeltonIV}} | |||
| :*{{user|Oggleboppiter}} | |||
| :** <small>Note: Account created October 26, 2006</small> | |||
| :*** In further explanation (harhar) I would like to say that I never believed that polls were essential to Misplaced Pages. But they do help keep it from being a dictatorship of evil. Though I can not speak for him, I think it is in ol' Jimmy's best interest to keep Misplaced Pages a democracy. Opinions change people, if they didn't then presidents in countries like the US wouldn't swap between Democrats and Republicans every few years. Although conformity rocks, and following the same old rules is a good way to avoid confusion, sometimes it is easier and more efficient to just go with what feels natural. Plus polls are just real cool and stuff. Oh, and I also find it offensive that it says when my account was created. I take that as a personal attack to my opinion. I'd understand if I created this account a week ago and never posted anywhere else, but seriously. Cmon. CMON! ] 02:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :****There's no need for you to speak for Jimbo: he's spoken on the subject of Misplaced Pages as a democracy himself. Specifically, he's , "it's an encyclopedia, not an experiment in democracy." This was subsequently incorporated into policy ]. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 02:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :***** And consensus on opinion matters is reached by using polls. We aren't areguing about facts. We aren't voting on the truth. What we should do can't be proven. This isn't an 'experiment' of democrazy, but whether anyone likes it or not, polls are democracy in action. If my main man Jimbo didn't want polls, he'd make all of Misplaced Pages by himself. Also note that all Wiki Policy runs on common sense. Common, which is a fancy word for majority. OR the other way around, I forget. But if the majority of everybodys sense on this opinion says to do it one way, then that is more likely than not the way to do it. And if not, I won't complain one bit if Mr. Wales waltzes in right now to delete this whole argument and do it his way. I understand this is kind of jumbled. But quite frankly, I don't give a damn. I'm here to give my opinion on the matter, not present it on a silver platter. ] 03:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :******Well, thanks for your opinion — it is appreciated, even if I disagree with it. However, with regard to how things are decided on Misplaced Pages, it's really not the intention that consensus is determined by polls. See ], which says, "Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish, and ], so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. However, when supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus." Consensus is different from majoritarian voting — incidentally, if this ''were'' based on majoritarian voting, the discussion would now be over, and the existing guideline would have been "voted in". I happen to think that it has been supported by a consensus of editors participating in this discussion, but that's not a unanimous view, sadly. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 04:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for including these. —] (]) 15:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ====No exceptions clarification==== | |||
| I'd like to clarify what I meant and what Elonka summarized briefly as "no exceptions". I don't think we should tolerate any exceptions to the guideline ''in the long run''. If there is some show or aticle in general that doesn't fit into the guidelines and strict enforcement would lead to an article or articles of lesser quality, then in the short term it may make sense to ignore the guidelines and do what seems reasonable instead. However, once this hypothetical exception is allowed, it is important to examine the particulars of the situation, form a generalized solution, and establish specific criteria to handle similar cases in the future. In that way, the guideline changes to accomodate the situation and obviates the need for an exception (and for future bickering about the same question over and over). | |||
| Applied to our current situation, it has not been shown that there is anything particular or peculiar about ''Lost'', ''Star Trek'', or the others not covered under the current guideline. (]) Consequently, if allowed, it would be flatly impossible to form a generalized solution for the guideline. New series would follow one pattern or the other based on the whim of whoever gets there first. It is that sort of long-term exception to which I am opposed, on what you might call "religious grounds". -] 02:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Consensus 101== | |||
| I realize that there are some very experienced Wikipedians in this discussion, but there are also some new folks, so I wanted to take this opportunity to explain a bit about the Misplaced Pages consensus process. | |||
| There's a common misperception among many new editors that Misplaced Pages decisions are made by "voting". However, this is not correct. There ''are'' surveys, and ], but it is very common to see non-intuitive results from these surveys. For example, it is often seen that there is a seeming "majority" for a particular position, and yet the final determination is for the minority viewpoint, or even simply "no consensus" (my own ] is a case in point, where I received roughly twice as many support as oppose comments (86:47), but the final determination was still "no consensus"). | |||
| Per ], the way that things are supposed to work, is that when there is disagreement, those with different points of view engage in "polite discussion and negotiation" about the matter, with the ultimate goal being to find a way to work together to "accurately and appropriately describe the different views on a subject." | |||
| ] has similar wording, stating, "People are sometimes tempted to call a vote on a guideline, but this is a bad idea because it polarizes the issue (see ] for details). Instead, a guideline is made by listening to objections and resolving them." | |||
| In the current discussion, the core question seems to be, "What shall the wording be about episode naming at ]?" There are obviously very different opinions on this, as can be seen in the above section entitled "]". | |||
| So how do we proceed at this point? My own recommendation is that some of the more neutral editors among us, or perhaps even someone from outside this discussion, reads the views that were expressed, and tries to come up with guideline wording that does the best job of summarizing those views. It ''is'' possible to write a guideline that incorporates multiple views, or references the fact that there are disputes about some aspects of a guideline. For example, see ] and ]. Another guideline page that mentions a "contentious" issue is at ], and reading through other guideline pages at Misplaced Pages will quickly show that there are other controversial issues here and there. | |||
| Once we have some suggested guideline additions (perhaps a list of suggested paragraphs?), we could see if there are any that are well-worded enough to get a clear consensus of support, in which case that wording can be incorporated into the Guideline page. If we can't find wording that we all agree with, then we can move on to other techniques as recommended at ]. | |||
| In short, when there are editors with strong opposing views on Misplaced Pages, it is important that everyone comes to the table with a willingness to listen to the "other side", and to make attempts at compromise. Ultimately, whether we are dealing with a guideline page, or an article about a controversial political issue, I believe that the final version ends up stronger when the involved editors do their best to represent ''all'' major views of a subject, so that the reader can then make their own informed decision based on the information available. --] 05:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm pretty sure that most of us are neutral in this matter, in that we have nothing personal to gain, nor do we have some sort of ulterior motivation. This is not like a political situation or something with morals or personal feelings, or anything like that. You're asking us to include your view even though it has no support, no logic, nothing. You are saying anyone who doesn't want to support your view is biassed. You've failed at showing there even needs to be a change in the first place. When something is a dumb idea then it should be rejected and not included as some form of compromise. -- ] 07:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::And I take it by your comments about polls and voting that you no longer wish for another poll? Or is it that you will only say "voting is evil" when the results don't agree with your view? -- ] 07:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Heh. So you're claiming that your opinion is "neutral," but mine "has no logic" and is "a dumb idea." Ned, go back to ] class please. :) --] 07:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That is exactly what I'm claiming. At this point you are practically requiring us to be blunt, so I do not believe this is a civility issue. I'll repeat myself, if that has to be the case "''You've failed at showing there even needs to be a change in the first place.''" -- ] 07:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Elonka, if you wish to discuss anything at all at this point then you must stop ignoring my question. Read ]. I have directly called for you to explain your position on why these articles deserve an exception, which you have never explained. You have explained why a particular group of editors called for an exception, but that isn't what matters. Please, stop stalling an talk about the one thing that actually matters. ] 08:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Consensus is not the same as unanimity. (]) 08:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ** Agreed. But neither does a majority mean consensus. I think that in this case, rather than trying to look at things with a polarized "one side is right, the other side is wrong" position, that this guideline would be better served by trying to find a compromise position which "accurately reflects all views." This seems to be the way that other "contested" guidelines have finally reached consensus, by marking a section as controversial, and moving on. --] 04:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***An overwhelming majority does mean consensus. Why would 26 people need to compromise with 7 people? —] (]) 04:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Irony 101=== | |||
| I was looking through ], trying to find a hint of what Elonka has repeatedly referred to as a consensus of ''Lost'' editors to put suffixes on every episode article. I didn't find it; in fact, the only ''mention'' of the matter is in , as part of a laundry list of recommendations by Elonka. The specific issue of episode article ''naming'' is never mentioned again, as far as I can tell. But what I ''did'' find was this gem from Elonka : | |||
| ::: PKtm, if a majority won't convince you, if polls won't convince you, if good faith discussions won't convince you, please tell me: ''What'' would convince you that a consensus exists, and that you are part of an unreconciled minority who refuses to accept it? What proof could I possibly offer you? --] 00:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I'd like to turn that around, and ask: | |||
| :::Elonka, if a majority won't convince you, if polls won't convince you, if good faith discussions won't convince you, please tell me: ''What'' would convince you that a consensus exists, and that you are part of an unreconciled minority who refuses to accept it? What proof could I possibly offer you? —] <small>(] • ])</small> 04:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| (I know that Elonka will claim that the conversation here has not been held in good faith. However, she is wrong; although the ''tone'' of the discussion has occasionally been less than ideal, the ''content'' on offer has consistently been in good faith.) | |||
| So, Elonka: what would it take to convince ''you'' that you are part of an unreconciled minority? —] <small>(] • ])</small> 04:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Josiah, as I have said many times, I, and many others, want a clean and fair poll on the matter. I've actually been having other people contact me privately about this discussion, to tell me that they want to come in and offer an opinion, but the sheer quantity of text is daunting, they're confused about what exactly is being discussed, they're confused about how to weigh in, and they're distressed about the amount of vitriole here, and don't want to wade into something controversial. Which is why I think that a ''structured'' and fair poll, would help clarify things. | |||
| : Anyway, about the ''Lost'' consensus, I'm not even sure it's going to do any good trying to explain this, since most of the people in this discussion seem to be completely anti-compromise, but just in case anyone ''is'' still listening with an open mind, here's the history: The ''Lost'' guidelines came about as a byproduct of a long long long (many months) controversy/debate/mediation, about whether or not ''Lost'' should even have individual episode articles at all. The result of the mediation was "yes", but compromises had been debated and reached about how the articles were to be structured and maintained. Coming out of the mediation, we had a page at ], which everyone had looked at and signed off on, and which our mediator had also modified in September 2006 . At the time, the recommended article titling method was to include a suffix on all episode articles of "(Lost episode)" but this was changed to "(Lost)" on October 2 since that's how most articles appeared to be titled anyway . Participants in the September mediation also agreed that a link to the new guidelines should be included on the talk pages of all episode articles, and this was posted as a "to do" item at the ''Lost'' WikiProject. | |||
| :In early October, a concern was raised by one of the parties to the mediation (PKtm, who was on the opposite side from me) about whether or not the articles were going to be brought into compliance with the guidelines , and so we renewed our commitment to get all episode articles processed. On October 13, I created a large checklist which listed every ''Lost'' episode, and what work was required on it, such as whether it needed to have its plot summary condensed down, or whether its title needed to be changed. Both sides agreed on the format , and work then proceeded, with articles being slowly and steadily modified and moved, as necessary, with a representative from each side of the mediation "initialling" the episodes as they were brought into compliance (btw, edit summaries in these diffs point out the agreement with the naming issue) This process went along peacefully for weeks, slowly and steadily converting articles. Then, in late October, after I'd updated some links at ] , Ned Scott suddenly reverted me. PKtm, my mediation "opponent", went in and put the changes back, to confirm that there was consensus. We also rechecked consensus by having people specifically sign off at the guidelines talk page on the naming issue , but an edit war (instigated by Ned Scott) at the guidelines page continued, until the page was actually protected , and Ned was full swing into the "blame Elonka" game: . Efforts to convince Ned that there ''was'' consensus were not successful, and Ned began posting requests for comment around Misplaced Pages: . It was around then that other editors started showing up with, erm, less than civil commentary. Some of the mediation signoff work continued for a day or two, until Ned started making massive changes to the table on October 29 , and things have been completely stalled since then, since the carefully negotiated compromise was ripped apart, our carefully-constructed chart was shredded, and all the carefully-balanced consensus (and a fair amount of good faith) dissolved. | |||
| : The next day, a "poll" was started here on this Naming conventions page, which poll received multiple, massive and rapid changes to (in my opinion) twist the wording and responses towards a particular POV. Calls for a new poll started almost immediately, but, as I've mentioned earlier, these were greeted with rapid-fire personal attacks and incivility. Our attempts to point out that there was precedent at the ''Star Trek'' pages (and ''Stargate'' and ''Buffy'' and many other television series articles), have evidently resulted in Ned and others (such as {{user|Yaksha}}, who I believe to be another of the sockpuppets in this discussion) going through categories that had been stable for months, and systematically moving any articles that they disagree with. When members of various WikiProjects around Misplaced Pages have tried to speak up and indicate concern, they've been overwhelmed by some of these "posting multiple times per day" editors, telling them that the decision's already been made. However, I disagree that there is consensus, I am appalled at the shady tactics, incivility, and personal attacks that have been used routinely throughout this process, and I am, frankly, nervous about what's going to happen to the ''Lost'' episode articles, since we have them in a halfway converted state, but one of the core elements of the compromise (the article titles) has been destroyed. Which lack of commitment is probably going to lead to further problems in the future of the ''Lost'' articles, though I doubt most people here even care about that, since they're mostly fired up about the titling issue. But it's a mess that others of us ''are'' going to have to deal with. | |||
| :And that's where things stand. Yes, there ''was'' a consensus, which was arrived at by a long and very painfully-negotiated compromise on the ''Lost'' episode articles. And for my part, I wish people would respect that compromise, and let us get back to work on converting articles at the ''Lost'' WikiProject, and ultimately let us all get back to editing Misplaced Pages, rather than continuing to argue about this naming issue, which ''wasn't an issue'' until people started getting all fired up about it, but is now resulting in changes to hundreds of articles around Misplaced Pages, and a whole lot of conflict. --] 06:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::None of that actually matters. You have explained that a group of editors, the WikiProject, is special, not a group of articles. Common sense would dictate that when all the articles are the same, they all be treated the same. Whenever someone asks "why these articles?" your responce has been "the wikiproject". But that is the answer to the question "which group of editors?". Basically your argument for not following the guideline is that you don't want to, and it is bad for the community to break from guidelines because some one feels like it. ] 06:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::So you and PKtm made up this "consensus"? Again, it had nothing to do with the mediation, which you appear to admit now (but several times before you claimed was apart of the mediation). What's really funny about your little timeline is that it specifically excludes the part where I originally supported you and your rationale. | |||
| ::] contains a requested move for that article to make it consistent with the (Lost) suffix. When I first stumbled across the conversation, I looked at these very guidelines and saw that there was an exception for Star Trek, so I figured that applied to Lost as well. I then proceeded to make an ass of myself because I had a little bit too much "good faith" in why WP:NC-TV said that. In the end, Wknight94 and Nohat convinced me that we shouldn't disambig the titles when it's not needed. The end result of that discussion was no consensus for the page moves. No consensus to title those articles that way. No consensus. Why did you not include this discussion in your history write up? | |||
| ::Just because you had very small and minor discussions before about naming issues doesn't mean that you have a sound argument or rationale. | |||
| ::When ] first started out I left on the talk page. I was talking about the Project getting ahead of itself, getting focused on what should be done with a WikiProject. Here's part of that message: | |||
| ::"''Lets make ourselves aware of some of the existing fictional and TV-related guidelines so people know what's appropriate or not. A WikiProject is not an independent ruling party, or it's own government that can make up it's own rules for "their" articles. As a WikiProject we should hold ourselves to a higher standard to learn about and follow existing guidelines, policy, and consensus in related matters.''" | |||
| ::-- ] 06:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :(edit conflict with Ned; it took me a while to write this one) Elonka, thanks for taking the time to provide that history. It does help me understand the background of the dispute. However, I think that you're not telling the whole story. Around the same time that the mediation was dealing with the issue of whether ''Lost'' should have episode articles ''at all'', there was a discussion at ] about whether or not to move that article to ]. That move request was closed with no consensus (approximately equal opinions on both sides). Interestingly, Ned Scott was originally arguing ''for'' the move; he subsequently changed his mind. In several of the links you cite yourself, Ned places the guideline discussion in the context of the move discussion at ]. Now, it's probably fair to say that Ned was overly confrontational in ''how'' he went about bringing this inconsistency to the attention of other ''Lost'' editors. But that doesn't mean that his objections are without merit, or should have been excluded from the discussion. | |||
| :Can you explain to me how the article naming is a "core element" of the compromise? I don't understand how a core element could avoid being mentioned in the ]. | |||
| :It seems to me that the same story is being repeated over and over again, but with different players. At ], PKtm is in the minority and fiercely protests the (majority) view advocated by Elonka. At ], Ned Scott is in the minority and fiercely protests the (majority) view advocated by Elonka. Here, Elonka is in the minority and fiercely protests the (majority) view advocated by... well, about 80% of the people who participated in the last poll. The first two discussions were intense but fairly small. This one has had over 40 participants, which is ''huge'' for a policy discussion. I put it to you, Elonka: you are in the same position now that PKtm and Ned Scott were formerly in. The question you have to answer is whether you'd rather take the model of PKtm or of Ned: will you allow the supermajority's view to be implemented, or will you continue to fight? Or can you help us to find ]? —] <small>(] • ])</small> 07:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: First, there needs to be a cease-fire, which means that Yaksha and his ilk who are pushing through many hundreds of page moves (which is further exacerbating this situation), need to stand down. Next, I want a clean poll, run fairly, with wording that is agreed upon before the poll opens. Run that poll for a minimum of one week, cleanly. If there's a clear consensus at the end of that time, I, for my part, will accept it. --] 07:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Why can't you accept the information that's been presented to you? You have no rationale supporting you, so it doesn't actually matter how many people agree with you. You want to do things differently because you feel special, but it doesn't work that way. Accept the argument, not the numbers. ] 07:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"Need to stand down". No - they don't. We haven't seen anyone who would make them stand down either. "I want a clean poll" doesn't mean you are going to get it - not a binding one anyway. At this point, folks on this side of the fence would be able to claim a tainted poll based solely on the fact that others on this side have been bored into a coma by the repetition and the powerless insistence. —] (]) 12:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Me and my ilk...flattering, Elonka, really. So what if we're making hundreds of page moves? This isn't a war, we don't need a cease-fire. The guildline is not under debate, and by definition it should be followed by default, otherwise it serves no purpose. So, we move the pages to conform. The only debate here is about exceptions. If you manage to convince everyone else that any one TV series deserves to be an exception, then i'll volunteer to go move everything back to how it once was. But until such an exception is justified, the moving continues. --] 07:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : You're welcome. :) Though, I would say that the guideline is most definitely under debate, as is pretty clearly demonstrated by the way that the guideline itself has a "dispute" tag on it and is currently protected, and this talk page keeps scrolling and scrolling. It's hard to get more "under debate" than that, I'd say. ;) --] 08:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::As I've pointed out before (actually, I even changed the dispute tag to reflect this), the guideline itself is not in dispute. You've clearly stated that you don't want to change the guideline, but rather allow WikiProjects to make exceptions to it. We've said that's ok, if they have a reasonable rationale, and you haven't provided one. There is a dispute, but it is not on the guideline. -- ] 08:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::<small>....that...last comment...was meant to be sarcastic </small> --] <small>09:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ==Request for comment== | |||
| To new people coming here, the main issue here is whether articles on television episodes should have the series name as a suffix, or whether only articles needing disambiguation should have such a suffix. Some Wikiprojects have done the former, our present guidelines suggest the latter. A secondary issue is whether the suffix should then be the series name, or whether it should include the word "episode". Current debate is at the bottom of this page; earlier debate and a variety of polls and summaries on the subject are above, or in the archive. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| :BTW, when you say "some have done the former", do you basically mean two? Only Star Trek and Lost seem to have done them that way and done them quasi-intentionally. The rest I think we figured were just copying the Star Trek precedent which, in turn, appears to have been set forth by basically one guy all by himself with no discussion whatsoever. Does that sound about accurate? —] (]) 16:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Almost: except that the ''Lost'' discussion appears to have taken place off-wiki, so nobody is really clear what the intentions were. There is certainly no evidence on-wiki that ''Lost'' has established a convention to place suffixes on all episode article titles. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh, even better - a smoky dimly-lit back room naming convention. Why include the whole project when you can include just the people that agree with you? —] (]) 19:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not sure that's fair — the ''Lost'' article naming convention was supposedly arrived at as a by-product of mediation over another debate, and I'm sure it was reached with good faith. I'm not sure exactly how it happened (as I said, it's not on-wiki, and I wasn't a participant), but I think its intentions were good. Unfortunately, the discussion appears to have reached a resolution that was satisfactory only to the participants in that conversation, and didn't pay sufficient attention to the larger context of Misplaced Pages — which, of course, is why it's a bad idea to establish guidelines off-wiki. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The Lost discussion didn't happen off-site, it didn't happen ''at all''. What did happen was that the results of the ] were copied to a sub-page of the Lost WikiProject (]) by Elonka . When Elonka did this she ''added'' a section on episode titles, and then rationalized that when everyone agreed with the mediation results they also agreed with her addition. -- ] 19:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Sounds like not even the other project participants were real satisfied. Basically, Josiah, you said the same thing as I - only in a nicer way! :) —] (]) 19:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Poll again?=== | |||
| In a word, no. We've been over this several times. (]) 08:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Users looking for the old RFC can find it ]. (]) 08:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You beat me to it! I'll add my comment, which was "no. This has now crossed the line in being disruptive." -- ] 08:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Multiple people have called for a clean discussion, since the old one was extremely tangled. The wording in the above poll is primarily that recommended by Josiah Rowe. Let's let things run for one week, in a clean manner. --] 09:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::No. Every time you ask, arbcom looks more friendly. -- ] 10:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| And before you say it, no, "multiple invitations have gone out" doesn't justify this. --] 09:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Multiple people have disagreed with Yet Another Poll. The first poll was clear. The poll about whether the first poll was tainted showed that it wasn't. The summary of positions above makes the position clear yet again. Consensus does not equate to unanimity, and if a few people disagree with something that doesn't mean it's not consensual. People are welcome to comment here as usual, as always; there is no need to call for everyone to repeat their position once more in a poll-like fashion. (]) 10:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*I have put a few comments up on this very long series of discussions in the last half hour, not sure where is best. This is the first I knew about this discussion. I am still (after an hour and a half of reading) a little unclear whether this is a substantive or procedural discussion. However, as an 'outsider' to this discussion - reading it for the first time today - I feel that Elonka's views have been mischaracterized and that she has been unnecessarily abused. Thank you, Elonka, for trying to draw attention to the fact that both substantive issues may need more discussion. The high level of hostility and personal attacks are completely inappropriate and they turn off newer or less aggressive editors, and creates an unhealthy wikiclimate. It would have been so much easier to just have had a new discussion, instead of arguing over whether there should be a new discussion or not. If there is an issue, discuss it and assume good faith. I know that this has gotten really long, but it wouldn't have been nearly as long if so many people weren't just pushing so hard for things to be closed. Good lord, if somebody wants to talk about something a little longer, or look at things from different angles, or feels that some ideas have been marginalized or that some discussions need to continue, just talk and be done with it. It looks really bad, looking back over the page, how aggressive folx have been in trying to stamp out dissent on an issue that seems like there are at least 2 working sides. ] 17:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :**If "easy" is your main concern, it would have been very easy to accept the obvious 26-7 consensus from the first poll. I've seriously never seen a situation as lopsided as this contested so hard. —] (]) 17:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :***Riverbend, it might seem that we're a bit harsh with Elonka, but I assure you that is only because this debate has been dragged out needlessly by her and two or three others, her making very misleading statements, and her harassing other editors in the form of inappropriate user talk page warnings. Elonka is very good at misrepresenting the situation. I quote Serge: | |||
| :***"''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... --Serge''" | |||
| :***Take a look at the start of the debate at ] and then work your way down, and you'll see what I mean. No one here means any disrespect, but there's only so many times you'll let yourself be played. Elonka's tactics have become highly disruptive and manipulative, and the editors here are just getting tired of it, that's all. -- ] 20:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| There has been ''profound'' disrespect throughout this process, ever since the first poll started on October 30, and then was rapidly twisted past recognition. The "obvious 26-7 consensus" that Wknight94 cites above was meaningless, and repeated calls for a new and clean poll have been belittled as "stalling", "immature delay tactics", "bad faith" , and the "whining" of "sore losers" engaging in "borderline trolling" and being generally "disruptive" . Riverbend is correct in his assessment that much of this discussion has been little more than aggressive people attempting to stamp out dissent. We need a clean and civil discussion. --] 00:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :A 26-7 consensus is meaningless? I think maybe an 8-7 vote or even a 12-7 vote could be called meaningless - but 26-7?! That's a blowout even in the ] and they can score 7 at a time. —] (]) 00:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Let's look at the situation. Elonka, when you called for a new poll, you misrepresented people as supporting another poll - in my case you did it twice, even when I pointed it out after the first one and said "For the record, I strongly oppose doing another poll." You said that a second poll should use language that was acceptable to all, yet you posted a poll with language that people had disputed as biased. And when you invited others to participate on other talk pages, you used biased language that misrepresented the situation and was favorable to your position (which I think verged on campaigning). And now we find out that the "guideline" in WP:LOST didn't come from mediation (as you claimed in your edit histories when changing article names), but was simply added by you to the policy with no consensus - obviously consensus to not follow WP:D wasn't present, as demonstrated by the numerous page moves of the Lost episode articles. Based on your actions, I don't see how you can still claim good faith in this discussion, or take a plea for "civility" from you seriously. --] 00:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Since you've cited the diffs, I can only assume you've actually read them -- yet you continue to ignore the very valid points they bring up. I especially like how you cite ], the exact sort of occaisional contributor you purport to be defending. Once again, if you want respect and support, you need to argue substantive issues, not procedural ones. Otherwise, it's only natural to come to the conclusion that you're stalling. It's not belittling you if it's true, so ''prove us wrong'': ], among others. -] 01:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==History has a tendency to repeat itself== | |||
| ... and as such we will return to this discussion at a later date. Elonka is not alone, just the most vocal... The problem with TV episodes they usually reference something with in the show, or the world, to help people connect. So as such we will need to be disambig more and more titles. (A word or a capitalization diffrences is a stupid reason not to disambig.) This leads to a consistancy issue, why are some title diasmbiged while other are not? This issue of consistancy will not go away withthe concensus we have today, so the issue will be brought up again, and who knows maybe next time it will go the other way.. ] 10:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agreed. I just found this page today, I do hope that at some point the actual issue could be discussed again - I saw very little actual talk of substantive stuff here, just procedural. For the record, since I didn't know about this discussion earlier, I am in favor of total disambiguation for episode articles, as is done on the Buffy site and many others - we should have consistency among articles from each series. If the guidelines want disambiguation only when necessary, then a series should be able to choose to make that exception to the general guidelines. It makes link-making more predictable and seems really reasonable, especially considering that as other pages are created that may make future disambiguation problems, it would make so much more sense. ] | |||
| ::::If any articles or WikiProject want an exception then they need to have a rational reason for exception. Link-making is hardly an issue, as I seriously doubt most editors and readers know the exact title off hand, and would likely check the article before making the link. ] explains how we can handle future disambiguation conflicts, should they arise. The only argument that has been offered is "consistency", but without a reason ''why'' we need consistency. -- ] 20:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Here's something I said a few sections up "'' I think this is one situation were common practice holds no weight. For one, it's not uncommon for a single editor to start 20, 30, or even 40 + episode articles. Not only that, but a single List of episodes article can dictate the naming when people create via redlinks. It's also human nature to do things like consistent naming for the sake of consistency alone. It's one of those things that can easily spread, and fast. This alone only tells us that it's easy to start articles on Misplaced Pages, not that there was any considerable thought behind the process. -- Ned Scott''" -- ] 20:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Why are some title dabbed and some not? Because some need them and some don't. | |||
| :You may as well ask for all books to be dabbed with the author. After all, ] are and ] are not. And...why the hell does everything ] not need dabbing when ]]]] already do? --] 13:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also, see arguments presented ] --] 13:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::You missunderstand who is asking the question, its not me or Elonka or any other editor. It's the end reader, wondering why a connected series of articles doesn't look like a connected series of articles. ] 17:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::A lot of readers wonder why we don't have recipes on Misplaced Pages, or more fan site external links. Most readers will not type in an episode name directly, they will follow a link, making it a non-issue for the reader. -- ] 20:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::EnsRedShirt, I think you're making a mistake in assuming that the average reader will notice or care whether article titles are "consistent". If, for example, someone were reading the pages about the character ] ("The Saint"), they would see several pages that have the suffix (The Saint) after them, and several that do not. (The first four novels in that series are at the pages ], ], ] and ].) This is '''not''' a problem. If ''Star Trek: The Next Generation'' episodes were titled in accordance with this guideline, I don't think anyone would wonder why they would go from '']'' to '']'' to '']''; or, if they did, they would quickly realize that the suffixes went with episodes that had names shared with other topics. | |||
| ::As I said ], the desire for all pages in a given category to have the same suffix is solely an aesthetic one, and is not supported by Misplaced Pages guidelines or policies. ] says, "When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page." That's what parenthetical suffixes are for: '''disambiguation''', and disambiguation only. They're not there to provide context for a page, or to make pages look "consistent". If redirects are provided, there's no problem with ease of link creation either. | |||
| ::Elonka also cited ], which says "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." She read this as supporting preemptive disambiguation of episode articles. However, she chose not to cite the next paragraph, which makes it clear (to me, at least) why the "consistency" argument holds no water: | |||
| :::''Names of Misplaced Pages articles should be optimized for ''readers'' over ''editors''; and for a ''general audience'' over ''specialists''.'' | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| ::Who is most likely to care whether the members of a given category have the same suffix in their titles? ''Editors'' of those articles, and ''specialists'' in that series. A lay reader ''isn't going to care'' whether the articles have the same suffix or not. They're here for the ''information''. As long as they can navigate between articles well, it won't matter to them whether an episode has (TNG episode) after it or not. It's the ''editors'' who care how a category looks. The reader or the general audience won't care. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 23:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :::And I respectfully disagree. It benefits the readers when a series of articles look consistant top to bottom. ] 03:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So you are suggesting that all Misplaced Pages articles have a parenthetical disambiguator after them? ] 04:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The only place you'll see them like that is in a category. Is that where you're concerned about appearance? —] (]) 04:07, 20 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) | |||
| :::(replying to EnsRedShirt) ''How'' exactly, in your view, does this "consistency" benefit readers? What possible difference can it make? And why are episodes of a television series any different from any other articles in a series, such as ], ] or even ], all of which are disambiguated only as necessary? Do you disagree with the line in the long-standing Misplaced Pages guideline ] that says "When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page."? —] <small>(] • ])</small> 04:23, 20 November 2006 (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, ] shouldn't be titled that way because it's not a "season 6" called "The Simpsons", it's season 6 of "The Simpsons". (edit: just saw the discussion is still on this page, see Alex_21's comment from 3 January 2024 )<br> | |||
| ::::I don't see it as disambiguation, just clarification for the reader so that they can quickly realize what they are reading at a glance.. As for the others thats up for their wikiprojects and editors to decide, I am neither so I won't comment on what they decide to do or not to do.] 04:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Yet while that format change proposal was successful, the same reasoning does not seem to be applied to episode titles (or characters apparently, looking further at this page). Going by the same logic behind the seasons proposal, a title like, say, ], would nonsensically suggest the article is about a "The Sopranos" called "College". Now I doubt anyone would actually think that, but then why did season pages need to change to follow that logic? Other types of media seem to also follow this reasoning, like how films are disambiguated with (''year'' film) instead of just (''year''). (edit: some other things like lists split up by year don't follow this trend, but I'm only talking about articles for individual media here.)<br> | |||
| I doubt any serious proposal to change this would get much traction, but I'm just wondering what other people think, since it seems like something of a double standard. Or I might just be looking way too hard into it. ] (]) 08:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It would likely be an even bigger undertaking to get this fixed than the season change was, but I agree that the current naming convention doesn't make much sense and is probably more in need of changing than the season articles were. I would support a change to "Episode Title (episode)" as the default disambiguation when there is already an article with the same name, and if there are multiple episodes with the same name then "Episode Title (''Series Title'' episode)". The same should apply to characters and other elements. - ] (]) 08:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::So disambiguation isn't disambiguation, but actually functions as the lead and category? That argument has already been demonstrated as factually inaccurate. ] 05:00, 20 November 2006 (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. - ] (]) 08:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, otherwise, most every novel would need its author in parentheses, most astronomical articles (], e.g.) would need (star cluster) or (galaxy) after them, and just about every political figure in every country would need an explanation after their name (surely not every English-speaking reader from Bangladesh knows who ] is), etc. That's a job for the first sentence of the article, not the article title. —] (]) 14:12, 20 November 2006 (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) | |||
| ::::::: Please do not misrepresent our position by dragging in all these other types of examples (that's a classic example of a "]" argument). What I am saying is that for ''television episodes'', which are stories that are released in a clear sequence, and usually have succession boxes to allow people to step through everything in order, it makes sense to have consistent article titles. And even so, I am not saying that ''all'' television series should use this method, but that for those series which ''do'' choose this method, I don't see it as causing a problem, and indeed, I can see many advantages to it, including consistency of appearance, inclusion of context in the article title, and ease of distinguishing which show that an episode is from, when scanning a watchlist. --] 23:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The problem is that you have not determined any TV series as different from another. Knowing that you can't make an exception, it's all or nothing. Also, you haven't presented that tv shows are different from any other subject, even those with a clear sequence, and will also need to be all or nothing.] 23:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Yes, what Jay said is why my argument is not straw man at all. Your argument would apply to stepping through U.S. Senators or a list of basketball players or a list of Hemmingway novels. Your notion that "it wouldn't hurt" is a bit of a straw man now that you mention it. No one has said it would "hurt" - we're just saying it's unnecessary and anti-guideline. Making every word in every one of the Lost articles' upper case wouldn't "hurt" either. —] (]) 23:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Allowing disambiguation based on region == | |||
| "''but that for those series which ''do'' choose this method''" <<and i repeat again, there are NO TV SERIES THAT DO CHOOSE THIS METHOD!. Lost did NOT choose this method, a few editors out of many lost editors did. Stargate did choose this method, but have decided it's okay for us to change it. Other wikiprojects/TVseries have said nothing to make us think they ''chose'' anything. So it's far more likely a matter of someone did it and everyone else ignored it. --] 02:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Should disambiguating by region (state/province/municipality, etc.) be allowed when disambiguating by year, country or genre is not appropriate? | |||
| * Multiple series did indeed choose this method, including ''Lost'', ''Star Trek'', and ''Stargate''. Further, I'll remind you that ] here ''said'' that Star Trek episodes were to use this method, for several months, until Ned Scott started edit-warring and removing that text. --] 03:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Please provide links to the discussions where the guidelines for these three exceptions were decided. —] (]) 04:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***Would it make any difference to the situation today? Regardless of how long the exception for Star Trek was in there and how much consensus there was or wasn't, there is clearly no consensus supporting such exceptions today. This has been confirmed by the voting on the move of the Lost episodes where Elonka is one of only two people who oppose those moves. --] 05:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *The problem is that WP:LOST project page doesn't indicate how consensus was reached, or between which users, or indeed that there is any. Hence, it is open to claims by others that there is no such consensus. It may be the case that the off-wiki discussion accidentally excluded some people who believe they should have had a say in it (I wouldn't know, I wasn't part the debate). The underlying issue is that Misplaced Pages cannot be legislated. It is not uncommon for a small group on Misplaced Pages to decide something and, in implementing it, to come in touch with a larger group that turns out to disagree with the decision. In effect, this means that the small group thought they had consensus when in fact they did not. This is a consequence of the design of Misplaced Pages, and a corollary is that a WikiProject cannot have jurisdiction over the articles it writes, because the entire concept of jurisdiction doesn't exist here. (]) 11:02, 21 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 ]. | |||
| == Moving forward == | |||
| 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> | |||
| I can see six possible courses of action here, depending on the views and actions of those editing the page. Let's examine them one by one: | |||
| :That sounds acceptable to me if the standard disambiguation options did not adequately define each show. - ] (]) 08:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| # '''We continue squabbling like toddlers fighting over a toy.''' I think that we all would agree that the conversation on this page has not been very productive. But if we choose, we can continue as we have been. | |||
| # '''The majority of editors agree to do as Elonka wishes, and hold another poll.''' I don't think this is very likely to happen. I proposed this last week, and it was pretty soundly rejected. Since I myself believe that the ''discussion'' following the previous poll established a consensus, I'm not going to push for this one. | |||
| # '''Elonka and the editors supporting her accept that there is a consensus opposing their position.''' This also seems quite unlikely to me. | |||
| # '''We continue to escalate the confrontation, and (sooner or later) take it to ArbCom.''' This is an incredibly long, tedious and painful process for everyone; plus, in the grand scheme of Misplaced Pages the issue of how television episode articles are named is pretty insignificant, and I'd feel bad wasting ArbCom's valuable time with it. I'd ''really'' like to avoid this if at all possible. | |||
| # '''Everyone agrees to drop the matter, leaving the guideline as it is but in practice allowing exceptions by WikiProjects.''' This might seem an attractive compromise on the surface of it, but would actually be absurd given the current status of the ]. | |||
| # '''We agree to mediation, as ] by Wknight94 above.''' Although the suggestion didn't get very far last time, I think that it's our best option. | |||
| == What's a series and what's a program: looking for a clear definition == | |||
| So, once again: mediation anyone? Even if we can't agree on whether a consensus had previously been established, can we at least agree that the current debate is getting us nowhere? —] <small>(] • ])</small> 05:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :In all honesty, I'm trying to follow a #7 which is not on your list: Watch this page, calmly follow the script and repeat the well-rehearsed answers that I've already given numerous times and exert as little energy as possible - all while the folks here that recognize the obvious consensus go about moving articles to be the way the consensus has decided. —] (]) 05:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*Reading my mind. +1 to #7. Of course, some may claim this is the same as #1, but I think it's different. --] 05:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Same here actually. #7 was my plan. Follow this page, get all the pages moved. Sort out any problems that may arise (although none has) from the moving. And once everything is moved, leave and let live <s>and get this page off my watchlist</s> --] 05:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::**Well, the opposing logic is that a 26-7 poll is not consensus. You can only squabble with that for so long. —] (]) 05:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hell, I started doing #7 before I even stumbled across this discussion. --]] 05:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, unless we start to consider consensus as being unanimity, 80% support is very good for a supermajority. --] 06:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| A while ago I started moving a bunch of pages in accord to NCTV, which says series television should be disambiguated as "series" and non-series should be disambiguated as "program" (it's not exactly that, but that's roughly what matters). I was doing these without much knowledge of the guidelines, so I ended up moving a lot of reality TV pages that might have been series. The problem is that 1. I'm not sure if every move was 100% right or wrong and 2. I feel like to move it back I'd have to do a lot of complicated stuff. The rules are a bit confusing, too; the definition of series here is written as "shows made of episodes which may relate part of an unfolding story, feature recurring settings or characters, or express a unifying narrative theme." That makes it look like only fictional shows can be series, but the examples include reality shows and documentaries. | |||
| ==Requests for a new poll== | |||
| Feel free to add/remove/change comments here if you believe the information is incorrect. You can also add your own name if you would like. | |||
| 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: | |||
| *Matthewfenton: "proceed with this" | |||
| * Englishrose: "the poll does need to be redone" | |||
| * PeregrineFisher: "let's redo it" | |||
| * PKtm: "I think this wording is clear enough, and I'd like to (again) encourage that we proceed" | |||
| * Argash: Start the poll over | |||
| * Shannemanner: Create a new format that's agreed upon ahead of time: | |||
| <s>* Milo H Minderbinder: "If you insist, at least let the wording be agreed upon" </s> ''My comments were misrepresented (for a third time, even after I pointed it out twice).'' --] 15:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Josiah Rowe: A new poll is not necessary, but is preferable to continued mudslinging | |||
| * Oggleboppiter "I think having a new poll is a fantastic idea" | |||
| * Elonka: "The old poll was a mess. Let's have a new one, run in a clean manner, with wording that is agreed-upon ahead of time". --] 08:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Not a series - ], ], ], other ones I forgot probably | |||
| ::Again, you take my comments out of context. I asked early on when restarting wouldn't have been a big deal. Those words do not apply to the current situation. -- ] 08:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ''Probably'' not a series (dunno for sure) - ], ] | |||
| It is my understanding that you don't really need anyone's permission to start a poll, so I suggest you stop asking for it and just start the poll. Of course, it won't be binding or particularly meaningful given the lengthy discussion already and the overwhelming support for keeping the guideline as it is now. If it makes you happy and would allow us to continue forward on ''substantive'' issues, I wouldn't stop you. I will, however, publicly abstain from voting and encourage others to do the same. -] 10:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I believe Elonka is misinterpreting several of the comments here; for instance, Josiah Rowe says he doesn't think a poll is necessary, and obviously Ned Scott is not in support of a new poll. Shannernanner does not call for a new poll but for stability in the then-present one. Some comments, like Milo's, appear to be made in exasperation ("if you absolutely insist on a new poll...") which should not be interpreted as support for one. And some comments, like Oggleboppiter's, appear to be based on the idea that Misplaced Pages must use polls to decide things, which is a fallacy. | |||
| *If as Anthony says, we have overwhelming support for keeping the guideline as it is now, what exactly is the point of yet another poll? The problems caused by the first polls should show us that polling on such issues as this is not such a great idea in the first place. (]) 10:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **I think this section has already been done once. Just copy and paste from wherever that was. You're free to copy my parts over anyway. —] (]) 12:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Probably a series - ], ], ] | |||
| With Elonka continuing to insist that another poll would put this whole thing to rest, I'd like to know exactly, specifically what conditions she would accept as consensus and let this thing end. If there were to be another poll, what would be required for you to consider it a definitive result? A certain percent of votes going one way or the other? Not actually counting the "votes" but someone interpreting which side is more convincing? And in the event of a vote that isn't decisively consensus, what result would you propose? You have mentioned that there should be some sort of "compromise wording", that both sides could potentially be happy with, what exactly would that be? My biggest concern about another poll is that it would ''not'' put things to rest, but would be disputed again, or there would be debate over how it should be interpreted. So please, could you spell out exactly what you would consider as the matter being settled? (note that this statement shouldn't be interpreted as supporting another poll) --] 15:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Like I said way way above somewhere, I would dispute if a new poll were to give different results because the attrition here has probably rendered a few people catatonic. —] (]) 15:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| IDK - ], ], ], ] ] ] 18:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===No need for a new poll=== | |||
| There's no need for a new poll, consensus has been demonstrated and I think at this point we have to consider guidance at ], namely, that "''It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Misplaced Pages's basic policies and principles - especially the neutral point of view (NPOV). At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate what appears to be support for a version of the article that is actually inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus.''" ] <small>]</small> 16:04, 21 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. |
|
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: | |||||||
| ||||||||
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)
- 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)
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: