| Revision as of 08:48, 3 December 2006 editNed Scott (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users39,898 edits rv← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:55, 3 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,211 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}} | |||
| {{RFMF|Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (television)|Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| {{WikiProject Television}} | |||
| '''NOTE:''' this talk page is currently being archived very quickly due to extensive ongoing conversation. | |||
| }} | |||
| For earlier discussion in this RfC, please see ] and ]. | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television/Navigation}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| {{Shortcut|]}} | |||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
| {{Archive box|* ] - June 2003 – August 2004<br /> | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
| * ] - August 2004 – September 2005<br /> | |||
| |counter = 18 | |||
| * ] - September 2005 – September 2006<br /> | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| * ] - October–November 2006 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| * ] - November 2006 | |||
| |algo = old(60d) | |||
| * ] - November 2006 | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| __TOC__ | |||
| == ] == | |||
| === ...and how! === | |||
| As the mediator at ] I was asked to comment here. I can confirm, for what it's worth, that the issue of appending (Lost) to every episode was raised by Elonka at one point, but it was not disucussed during the time I was mediator and was not part of the final agreement. | |||
| More importantly, can I direct your attention to ]? There was a year-long edit and move war over state highway names—should an article be named ] or ]? There were move wars, blocks, mediation, and finally arbitration, leading to a complex 3 month long multi-stage poll. When the poll went the wrong way, the leader of one fanction, a highly prolific contributor with more than 40,000 edits, simply quit in frustration. Please look at the principles in that case, especially ''9) When an arbitrary decision is called for, it should be made by those users and administrators in a position to do so. Sometimes any decision is better than no decision.'' and ''10) When an arguably arbitrary decision has been made, unless there is a substantial basis for changing it, the decision should be accepted.'' Rather than taking sides on the issue, can I ask that all sides step back, think about it from the point of view of a user, not an editor, think about the prinicples adopted in the Highways arbitration case, and most importantly, think about whether the time and energy you might spent fighting over this issue might be better spent. ] 12:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for this, Thatcher. I think this should help provide us all with some much-needed perspective. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, thank you. I've said all I care to say on this ridiculous issue and I've wasted enough time here. I'm out. —] (]) 20:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Thatcher, thanks for stopping in. I agree with your assessment of the situation. The naming issue was definitely not one of the items explicitly discussed in the mediation, as we spent our time focusing on those items that were the cause of strong disagreement. However, we did come up with an "Episode guidelines" page, and there was apparent consensus for multiple items on that page, including the naming issue. This can be proven by later discussions between myself and PKtm, where we had a "mediation adherence table", and his acceptance of the consensus at that time can be seen in his edit summaries, as well as a comment later in the discussion where he was specifically telling Ned Scott to stop meddling with the guidelines page, since there was already a consensus. I believe that we are also all in agreement that one of the results of the mediation was to link the ] page from every single ''Lost'' episode article. | |||
| :::Then, after the mediation, we agreed on a format for converting the episodes (which included moving them to consistent titles). Everything was actually working pretty well, and we were moving forward with the agreed compromise -- work was proceeding quietly, steadily, and constructively for weeks, with members of both sides of the mediation "initialling" each episode as it was completed. Then, about halfway through the conversion process, in late October, Ned Scott started with his edit warring, reverting edits, changing the text on the guideline page without any attempt at discussion, and being disruptive in multiple other ways, such as completely changing the "mediation adherence table", to the point where conversion work stalled. His actions resulted in other problems too, such as the guideline page eventually being protected from edit wars, and the situation has continued to escalate to its current status, where a main Naming Conventions guideline page is protected, and hundreds of articles around Misplaced Pages have been being moved without consensus, with hundreds more under threat of being moved, by editors who are ''claiming'' they have consensus, but obviously do not. Is this a big waste of time? Yes, I agree. Especially because this whole thing could have been resolved by simply running one clean and unbiased poll, to show for sure where the consensus is. --] 06:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Several points, Elonka: | |||
| ::::*You are now saying that the episode naming issue was ''not'' part of the mediation, but was part of a consensus of the ''members'' of the mediation developed after the mediation closed. This is a change from your earlier position, and should be noted as such. | |||
| ::::*Ned was part of the mediation. You have frequently suggested on this page that when there is vocal dissent, there is not consensus. By your own logic, once Ned protested the naming pattern of the ''Lost'' articles, there was no consensus among the participants in the mediation. | |||
| ::::*Looking back on the situation, it seems that Ned was have been overly confrontational and occasionally incivil in the way he went about raising his concerns about episode naming. However, Ned's incivility does not negate the fact that the episode naming business was ''not'' part of the mediation agreement. Ideally, Ned should have raised this issue politely, and it would have been resolved through discussion — but that didn't happen, and there's fault on ''both'' sides. | |||
| ::::*It really isn't fair to place the blame for ] being protected exclusively on Ned, any more than it's fair for Ned to blame you exclusively. It takes (at least) two to edit war. | |||
| ::::*You say, "this whole thing could have been resolved by simply running one clean and unbiased poll, to show for sure where the consensus is". As Radiant! has frequently pointed out on this page, Misplaced Pages guidelines are ''not'' established by polls, but by discussion. The poll's problems are '''irrelevant''' to the consensus. The ''discussion'' following the poll established a clear and unambiguous consensus ''against'' preemptive disambiguation. I know that you disagree, but hopefully we will be able to find some common ground in the mediation. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 08:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I prefer the term "dumbfounded" as opposed to uncivil. I have been fairly polite during the majority of this whole discussion, and considering how absurd things got, I didn't do too bad. Not only that, but it's text, not speech or a normal conversation. When in a dispute the other side always seems harsher than they really are. Forgive me for standing up for myself. -- ] 08:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Josiah, Ned Scott was not a party to the mediation. He was, however, obviously aware of it, as he posted in the "additional issues" section . Also, after guidelines were agreed upon, Ned was also obviously aware of those guidelines, as he posted in September . Now of course Ned has the right to change his mind, but I think it's clear that there ''was'' consensus for the guidelines, and they should not have been changed without discussion. --] 18:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I made the mistake of making an assumption that there was a consensus at that time. You seem to make this a big part of your argument, that if people assumed something was true when it wasn't, then it should be true. -- ] 20:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ====Suggested poll wording, December 2006==== | |||
| Here's the latest version of recommended poll wording: | |||
| ::==Straw poll== | |||
| ::ISSUE IN QUESTION: The general practice for article naming on Misplaced Pages is for articles to be titled with the simplest form that is not ambiguous with other titles. Parenthetical suffixes are usually used for disambiguation. However, on a recent review of the situation, it was discovered that many hundreds of pages for television episodes have been created with parenthetical suffixes, even though their titles are not ambiguous. Some television program WikiProjects (such as ], ], and ]) have recommended the use of suffixes such as (<seriesname>) or (<seriesname> episode) as a general practice (example: ]); others have followed the general guidelines (example: ]) | |||
| ::Some editors feel that the general disambiguation guidelines should be followed, and all pages for episodes with unambiguous titles should be moved to names without a suffix. Others believe that all television episode articles should have suffixes appended, whether their titles are ambiguous or not. Still others believe that the editors of a particular program, like with a WikiProject or other group of interested editors, should be able to determine what pattern works best for that show. | |||
| ::This poll is to gauge opinions on the matter. Please do not simply answer with "Support" or "Oppose", but indicate your actual opinion on any or all of the questions below: | |||
| ::===Question #1 - appropriateness of suffixes === | |||
| ::When is it appropriate for TV series episode articles to use a suffix (such as (<seriesname> episode)? Should this be reserved strictly for cases where another article already exists by that name (i.e., for disambiguation), or is it acceptable for some series to always use regular suffixes in order to provide for a consistent naming system? Should groups of interested editors, such as those in a WikiProject, be allowed to establish consistent naming conventions for their particular show, or should a single pattern of naming be applied to all television episode articles on Misplaced Pages, regardless of series? | |||
| ::=== Question #2 - what type of suffix should be used?=== | |||
| ::In cases where a suffix is to be used, is it better to use (<series>), (<series> episode), or to allow other methods (such as the ''Star Trek'' abbreviation system), as long as it is consistent throughout that series? | |||
| ::===Other comments=== | |||
| If anyone has trouble with any of the above wording, please suggest changes below. If no one has concerns with wording within the next few days, we'll go ahead and proceed with the poll. Thanks. --] 00:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks good Elonka, I my self can think of over 1 thousand articles that use(d? - due to unilateral moving) suffixes and so I propose it be changed to "over 1 thousand" <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/] ] ]</font></small> 00:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::No matter what the wording of the poll is, the poll is unacceptable. I can no longer assume good faith at this point. Assuming good faith would imply that you don't know any better, but it's been explained so many times that it isn't possible. Suggesting a poll is spitting in the face of everyone who has participated in the discussion and is the most disruptive and uncivil behavior that one can engage in at this point. The page moves will continue because there is no consensus to overturn the existing guideline. If you won't talk about the naming convention then stop participating in this discussion. ] 01:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::You da man, Jay! ]; ]. 01:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I guess according to ], pointing out that Elonka isn't being civil is an act of incivility. ] 01:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Those messages are ]. The very coy, unoriginal titling alone is reason to ignore it. ]; ]. 01:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Question #1 shouldn't even be addressed here. Whether individual projects or groups of editors can override a guideline is not specific to television episode articles. It's a general Misplaced Pages question and should be addressed in a more public forum. —] (]) 02:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've actually bothered to read question one now and I have a serious problem with not only asking that question here but anywhere on Misplaced Pages. It makes the assumption that there are closed groups on Misplaced Pages. The reason a WikiProject can't go against Misplaced Pages wide consensus is that the project couldn't have generated consensus unless it ignored everyone else on Misplaced Pages. Basically, you're asking "Even though it's been agreed that everyone should do things this way can this smaller group agree to do things differently as long as we don't get caught?" What's even worse is that you've made claims in other parts of this discussion that if it takes too long for you to "get caught" that your change shouldn't be undone. ] 03:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Neutral Mediation == | |||
| Hello. My 'name' is Wikizach. I have been asked to be an informal mediator. I would like to know everything that is going on, so if you can, please tell me on my talk page. I would greatly like to support a fair vote. Please sumbit your requests to me. Thank you. ]]Zach| ] 01:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for the offer, but I don't think informal mediation will be of much use at this point. -- ] 02:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with Ned — I think we need formal mediation. Also, one of the issues under dispute is that the majority of editors on this page believe that a second vote is not necessary, as a consensus was established in the discussion following the first vote. Therefore, coming into the discussion by saying "I would greatly like to support a fair vote" is not neutral. I am working on a proposal for formal mediation at ]. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 02:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::For you to get to Medcom or Arbcom you need First stage mediation. My comment about "fairness" is of many things I have found in reviewing the logs of this dispute. I believe mediation is always possible, if we try it, I would then be glad to help a case to the Mediation committee. Remember, it requires all parties to sign on, and as far as I can tell, there are many parties. And a direct appeal to the Arb. Com. will not work, they require 'prior review'. ]]Zach| ] 02:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{user|Radiant!}} has already attempted informal mediation. It was clearly unsuccessful as any further informal mediation would be. Your input is appreciated though. —] (]) 02:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sorry I couldn't be of more help. I wish you best of luck with mediation. (]) 09:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Radiant may of tried but it would of never worked as he lost his neutrality. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/] ] ]</font></small> 09:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*By its very nature, a neutral party can disagree with you - because if you knew in advance that the party would agree with you, then it wouldn't be a neutral party. (]) 10:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::**No apology necessary, Radiant. You'll notice I didn't speculate on ''why'' your informal mediation failed. Hint: it wasn't your fault. —] (]) 11:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Thanks for your help, Radiant! ] 14:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Formal mediation request filed == | |||
| I have filed a formal mediation request at ], and will be contacting all participants. Since so many people have participated in this discussion, I listed only those who have made significant comments recently; however, as far as I'm concerned anyone who wishes to join the mediation is welcome. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 03:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Pre-Mediation Issue Clarification == | |||
| I have actually been following this debate pretty faithfully though I haven't posted much for some time. Of the tremendous amount of discussion this issue has generated, it is my impression that much of the recent discussion has actually been debate about the debate itself, and as such the actual issues are becoming harder for the casual editor to follow. | |||
| As is currently being pointed out at ], I think that the current request for mediation is unclear, and I think it is a direct result of the confusion I just mentioned. In that vein, I think it's important to take several steps back and clarify the core issue, in preparation for mediation. What follows is my attempt to do so. | |||
| ===What we DO agree on=== | |||
| It appears to me that there is consensus in support of the following guideline: | |||
| *"Articles about television episodes should only be disambiguated when necessary (i.e., when there is another article on Misplaced Pages with the same name)." | |||
| There is also ] in support of the following guideline: | |||
| *"Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." | |||
| ===Proposal=== | |||
| It has been proposed that the first guideline above be amended with the following statement: | |||
| "In some cases, such as upon agreement from a WikiProject about a certain series (for example, with Star Trek), all episodes within that series may use a consistent titling system, such as a specific abbreviation which indicates which series it is from, regardless of whether or not the suffix is strictly required by disambiguation rules. These are special 'exception' cases and are generally discouraged for other series." | |||
| ===Arguments SUPPORTING this proposal=== | |||
| * '''This statement is necessary because''' we should remind editors that, as with any guideline, exceptions can and should be made when appropriate. | |||
| * '''This statement is necessary because''' it is reasonable for WikiProjects to develop guidelines for articles in their field of interest. | |||
| *'''This statement is necessary because''' it protects reasonable exceptions to general Misplaced Pages guidelines that a consensus of interested editors in a particular project have deemed appropriate. | |||
| * '''This statement is necessary because''' it protects existing guidelines made in good faith by WikiProject editors. | |||
| *'''This statement is necessary because''' it allows linkmaking to episode pages to be consistent, predictable, and easily recognizable (to benefit editors), and increases the likelihood that links will work (to benefit readers). | |||
| ===Arguments AGAINST this proposal=== | |||
| * '''This statement is unnecessary because''' common-sense exceptions to guidelines are ''always'' allowed on Misplaced Pages, and as such it is not necessary to explicitly permit particular exceptions on guideline pages. | |||
| * '''This statement is unnecessary because''' there is currently no evidence of any WikiProjects which have been determined (via consensus) to stand as a "common sense exception" to this guideline. | |||
| * '''This statement is unacceptable because''' precedence alone (i.e., "that's the way it's been done for a long time") is not a good reason to avoid editing or moving articles. | |||
| * '''This statement is unnecessary because''' unnecessarily disambiguating to give context is discouraged by ] and inconsistent with the rest of Misplaced Pages. | |||
| * '''This statement is unnecessary because''' with properly used redirects, links will work properly regardless of which name editors link to. | |||
| * '''This statement is unnecessary because''' it causes linkmaking from other shows and other parts of wikipedia to be less consistent and predictable. | |||
| * '''This statement is unnecessary because''' no guidelines need or should need "protecting". Any guideline can change at any time if that change is supported by consensus. | |||
| * '''This statement is unnecessary because''' it says that some cases are "special" but fails to explain why those cases are special. | |||
| * '''This statement is unnecessary because''' by listing exceptions, it weakens the guideline and has the potential to encourage each individual show to debate whether they should be an exception, leading to redundant arguing and inconsistent results. | |||
| ===Discussion=== | |||
| First of all, I'd like to be certain that the proposal above is the core issue. Elonka has stated this several times with only slightly different wording, so I am assuming that it is accurate. However, Elonka, if I have misrepresented you here, or if your actual request is for something different, please feel free to change the "Proposal" section. MatthewFenton, and anyone else who may also disagree with the current guideline, if you have a proposal that is different from Elonka's, then perhaps it would be useful to make a new section in this same format so we can we can address it as well. | |||
| Second, assuming that the proposal is accurate, I invite people to edit the "Arguments" sections above to clearly state their views in relation to the proposal. I think it might be useful for MedCom if we keep each of these sections to a certain length; I'd like to suggest 150 words per section. To keep it within this length, I invite people to edit the existing content as you feel is necessary to accurately describe the current views. | |||
| Josiah, I appreciate the effort you put into the RfM, and I hope this process helps it succeed. If, for some reason, it is rejected, then perhaps a bit of organization in this manner will help us construct a new, successful RfM... or, ideally, obviate the need for one. --] ‹ <big>]|]</big> › 21:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Toby, I think "is unnecessary" for at least some of the against arguments is not strong enough. At least for the latter two, perhaps "is unacceptable"? --] 22:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't agree with the characterization of ] as a WikiProject. It is, or at least hopes to be, a full guideline, like other naming conventions pages (such as ] or ]). Members of several different WikiProjects are participating in this discussion, but we are not a WikiProject. | |||
| ::I am somewhat reluctant to try to state the arguments for the proposal, but as an exercise in "writing for the enemy", I would suggest that the second item should be rewritten to something like "'''This statement is necessary because''' it is reasonable for WikiProjects to develop guidelines for articles in their field of interest." —] <small>(] • ])</small> 22:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::A similar discussion is taking place on the discussion page for the mediation, after changes were made by editors who were not the instigator (probably not the right word) of the RFM, hopefully in the spirit of constructivity. A possible addition to the Pro-proposal list - to make linkmaking to episode pages consistent, and predictable, and easily recognizable (to benefit editors), and increase the likelihood that links will work (to benefit readers). ] 23:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC). | |||
| ::::The current iteration of the proposed issue framing (still under discussion) is: "1) How should individual television articles be named; and 2) To what extent should interested editors, through consensus, be able to set series-specific guidelines to address the needs of pages for a particular television show when some of those rules are inconsistent with broader Wiki guidelines?" Any input would be welcome. . . ] 23:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't think the issue is so much about setting guidelines as much as making exceptions to guidelines. It seems like a distraction to even mention setting guidelines that don't need an exception to wikipedia guidelines, there isn't any controversy about that, is there? I prefer just discussing possible exceptions as in the proposal above, although I think it goes into too much detail about star trek and wikiprojects. --] 23:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::My 2 cents - I think that the specific arguments should not go into the mediation request - that is what the mediation is for, for someone to help us sort these things out and give everyone a chance to state their thoughts and ideas. This page and its structure would be an ideal fall-back option for if the mediation doesn't work, and to brainstorm in the meantime, but I think the issue framing for mediation would be something somewhat separate - something simpler and more general that everyone can agree with so the mediation can get started (which is under discussion on the talk page for the mediation). That's just an opinion. . . I just think that the 2 pages where this is being discussed, though, should touch base make sure to be distinct so there isn't 2 places coming up with different versions of the same thing. ] 00:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| FYI it says this at Misplaced Pages:Mediations: "When a mediation request is filed at Requests for Mediation, the initating party fills out a pre-defined format, listing the parties, the articles involved, the previous steps in dispute resolution, and '''a concise set of issues to be mediated''', stated as neutral bullet points. '''The Committee is very strict about the form of requests, in order to prevent the massive debates and flame wars that have taken place in the past'''. '''Requests that fail or refuse to comply with the required format will be rejected'''; the Committee expects compliance with Committee policy and procedure as a minimum demonstration of the good faith necessary for mediation." (emphasis added) ] 01:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you, Riverbend. My intention with this section is not to supplant the RfM, but to concisely describe the issue at hand to make it easier for the mediator assigned to this case, since it is my understanding that the mediator will review this discussion as part of the mediation. I posted it here in case the current RfM is rejected for some reason. | |||
| :Josiah is right about TV:NC not being a WikiProject... I think I was using the term in a more general sense ("editors who are interested in a particular thing") than the more official sense. I'll make Josiah's suggested change, but again I invite everyone to craft or augment these statements to accurately reflect the various views. I think if we work hard to pinpoint the exact point of contention it will make our mediator's job easier. --] ‹ <big>]|]</big> › 07:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry if I misunderstood! We would love more input on that page about the actual issue framing - I think that you have done a good job with this page! ] 14:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: One additional item worth mentioning, is that this discussion hasn't been just about ''adding'' to the guideline, but about ''removing'' from it. The ''Star Trek'' exception was a standard part of this guidelines page from the very beginning, and remained in place without a problem for several months, until Ned Scott decided to engage in edit wars to remove it. So I'm uncomfortable with a presumption that we have to get consensus to put an exception ''back'' on the page, when there was no consensus to remove that wording in the first place. --] 04:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There may not have been a clear consensus when Ned removed the ''Star Trek'' exception, but I, for one, think that there has been a clear consensus supporting that removal subsequently. There certainly is ''not'' a consensus at the moment to return the old ''Star Trek'' exception to the page. However, we might be able to get consensus for something like Milo's ] below, and I think it's more productive to look forward towards things like that than to look backward at all the mess that got us here. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 04:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The example was added without an explanation or rational reason, or even with a consensus. So if there is no consensus to include, why must there be consensus to remove? Just because it was there for a time doesn't matter; that doesn't give the rational behind it any weight. -- ] 04:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Something that has been in place in a guideline page for several months, without controversy, can be assumed to have consensus. Something that is ''removed'' from a guideline page, and is immediately protested, does ''not'' need to have a consensus to be put ''back'' on the page. That kind of thinking would lead to endless edit wars. The way that this situation should have evolved, should have been that if Ned had a problem with that section of the guideline, for him to bring it up on the talkpage and ensure that there was consensus for a change. Longstanding guidelines on Misplaced Pages are not to be changed at a whim. --] 06:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::One person adding something and no one noticing is not a consensus. It's important to realize that the person who started the original Star Trek discussion is the same person who suggested using redirects to solve this issue. ] 06:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| Elonka, one or two people protesting a change, even to "longstanding guidelines", does not constitute a lack of consensus for that change. Besides, however few people were paying attention when that happened, there are many more people paying attention now, and the consensus is clear. So what happened in the past with much fewer numbers paying attention is moot. --] 20:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Serge, what is clear is that there is a major dispute, so saying that there is a consensus, when there obviously is not, is not helpful. Please review ]. --] 21:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry. It is clear that there is a '''supermajority''' that supports the current wording of the guidelines, and only a relatively small minority is disputing the current wording. Is ''that'' helpful? --] 21:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think it's perfectly clear that there's not a major dispute. The vast majority agree, and there are two people trying to make their objections seem significant. Elonka, what exactly do you hope to accomplish by continuing to insist that there's no consensus in the face of an obvious one? --] 22:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Clarification of my position == | |||
| Recently I've noticed some editors suggesting that I oppose WikiProjects having guidelines (, implicitly ). This is inaccurate, and if I've given that impression I apologize. It is ''completely'' appropriate for WikiProjects to develop guidelines for articles in their field of interest. The issue, for me, is that if those guidelines come into conflict with general Misplaced Pages guidelines, the WikiProject should be able to explain their reasoning for any exceptions in a manner that is comprehensible and acceptable to non-Project members. And if, after discussion, a wide consensus of non-Project members feel that the WikiProject's guideline is a bad idea, the WikiProject should yield to the larger consensus. | |||
| I hope that we can stop the misleading talk of whether WikiProjects are "allowed to set guidelines" — I don't think anyone is saying they shouldn't be. The only question is how much weight those guidelines should be given, especially when they come into conflict with the guidelines of Misplaced Pages as a whole. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 23:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :FWIW, this is exactly my position too. --] 23:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposal 2 == | |||
| I like the direction the discussion has been heading. I also think the ] were excellent and very relevant to this discussion; I'd strongly recommend reading them and the case he links to (I'd also recommend moving it to the bottom, right now it's lost in the middle of a huge discussion). We definitely have consensus on the guideline itself, and the debate seems to be about making exceptions, and about whether the guideline should mention them. I think a possible compromise is saying that exceptions are possible, but make it clear that the bar is set high for them. I also think it's better to talk about exceptions in general instead of listing examples of them. I tried to make most of this a reflection of wikipedia guidelines as opposed to setting any new ones. This is pretty wordy , but I tried to make it as clear and loophole-free as possible. Any comments would be appreciated, and feel free to use this as a jumping off point for other possible wordings: | |||
| ''As with all Misplaced Pages guidelines, exceptions may be made, but only if there is consensus to do so. While "common sense" should be used to make exceptions, individuals may not come to the same "common sense" conclusions; if the community at large can't be convinced that a proposal is "common sense", it may not be. Keep in mind that consensus is made up of the community at large. A small group of editors working on articles may come to a decision, but others in the general Misplaced Pages community may not agree. Misplaced Pages pages do not have owners or custodians who control edits to them, and since television articles share the namespace with all other topics, any exceptions can affect the entire encyclopedia. While it's not mandatory to seek wider comment on making exception to a guideline, it's probably a good idea if you think there may be objections. A consensus decision to make an exception is not binding, and that exception may be reversed if consensus changes.'' | |||
| ''If there isn't consensus for making an exception, the guidelines should be followed.'' | |||
| --] 21:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :That proposal is just a catch 22 situation. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/] ] ]</font></small> 21:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Could you elaborate? --] 21:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Milo, I think that's a very useful statement, and I would support its addition to the guideline page. I doubt we can get the objectors to agree to it, however. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 22:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would like to request we make it clear that this is not a part of ] itself, but simply the consensus interpretation of ] and good advice to follow. This guideline is about naming conventions of articles on television, not Misplaced Pages policy. Other than that, I completely agree with everything it says and if including it helps end the fighting, I support it. <span style="color: #F06A0F">–</span><small><span style="border: 1px solid #F06A0F">]]</span></small> 09:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == The Sponge Who Could Fly - requested move == | |||
| 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) | |||
| Another requested move <s>of a Lost episode</s> (correction: it's a spongebob squarepants episode). This time: | |||
| : ] → ] | |||
| See ] --] 20:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Episode title disambiguations == | |||
| == "TV series" == | |||
| 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> | |||
| Note: I don't know what the above dispute is about, and someone should archive this talk page. | |||
| 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) | |||
| "TV series" is not a moniker appropriate for a professional, long-term encyclopedia. "Television series" is the clearer, full name that will be understood by the most people for the longest period of time. —]→] • 00:53, 2 December 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) | |||
| :::The season thing was a big undertaking but still got done it looks like. I think your suggestion is better than the way it's done now and I'd be interested in hearing others' opinions on that. But it feels like it's harder to get feedback in talk pages lately for some reason? ] (]) 08:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Allowing disambiguation based on region == | |||
| :The debate is voluminous and ongoing. The page is being archived regularly, but fills up fast. | |||
| Should disambiguating by region (state/province/municipality, etc.) be allowed when disambiguating by year, country or genre is not appropriate? | |||
| :By, "TV series", I presume you mean the disambiguation tag suggested here. As a dab tag, it's not a part of the article's title or content, so it's not critical that it be understood by the reader. It's an abbreviation for the convenience of editors that does not seriously impact anyone. If, for some odd reason "TV" comes into such disuse that it causes real confusion, we can make the change then. <span style="color: #F06A0F">–</span><small><span style="border: 1px solid #F06A0F">]]</span></small> 01:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Wait. What?! Do my eyes deceive me?! A new issue here?! Hallelujah, thank you Centrx! | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| ::TV has been TV on this guideline for a very long time but I'm not entirely sure why. I agree it looks dumb. From my ''very'' light forensics, it appears that (TV series) was just the first method used with no discussion that I could easily find. The earliest useful revision of this page I could find was . First, you'll see a section about one person trying to hijack a poll - that sounds eerily familiar. More importantly, the results of that poll show a lot of agreement for options '''besides''' "TV". "Television" gets lots of support, "ad hoc" get some too, TV not so much. For whatever reason (I confess to very lightly skimming the history), the issue was dropped and no guideline was ever made from the poll. It was finally resurrected ''16 months'' later with Netoholic - the biggest proponent for "TV" - leading the charge. Therefore, when the guideline first came to be, TV was on it. No offense to Netoholic - I don't know him at all - but it seems that he simply outlasted everyone. reminds me a lot of the current mediation where the walls are starting to show cracks from the siege. | |||
| 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> | |||
| ::Anyway, thanks for letting me ramble about something other than the last month's nonsense. I'd fully support changing TV to television wherever it appears in the guideline. —] (]) 03:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :That sounds acceptable to me if the standard disambiguation options did not adequately define each show. - ] (]) 08:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==ArbCom ruling about polls== | |||
| This is an interesting ArbCom ruling that just closed. Though not about naming conventions, it does have several similarities with our own dispute here, including the issue about polls, and whether or not it was proper for Radiant (or anyone) to have been deleting polls posted by another user: ]. See especially the "Principles" and "Findings of Fact". --] 06:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Interesting, "Radiant, while aggressive, violated no policy." -- ] 06:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == What's a series and what's a program: looking for a clear definition == | |||
| :Elonka, I'm not sure I'm understanding what points you feel are relevant to the discussion. In fact, the findings seem to run somewhat counter to your arguments so far. Could you elaborate? --] 07:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| A while ago I started moving a bunch of pages in accord to NCTV, which says series television should be disambiguated as "series" and non-series should be disambiguated as "program" (it's not exactly that, but that's roughly what matters). I was doing these without much knowledge of the guidelines, so I ended up moving a lot of reality TV pages that might have been series. The problem is that 1. I'm not sure if every move was 100% right or wrong and 2. I feel like to move it back I'd have to do a lot of complicated stuff. The rules are a bit confusing, too; the definition of series here is written as "shows made of episodes which may relate part of an unfolding story, feature recurring settings or characters, or express a unifying narrative theme." That makes it look like only fictional shows can be series, but the examples include reality shows and documentaries. | |||
| :I'd like to point to Findings of Fact #2: "Fresheneesz fundamentally misunderstands Misplaced Pages policy and practice ... that Misplaced Pages resolves discussions through the use of voting." <span style="color: #F06A0F">–</span><small><span style="border: 1px solid #F06A0F">]]</span></small> 07:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Anyways, the point is that I'm asking for help on what should be called a series and what should be called a program. Here are some pages I moved, categorized by how much I think they're a series: | |||
| ::Some of the rulings are open to interpretation, but my reading of the relevant portions is as follows: | |||
| Not a series - ], ], ], other ones I forgot probably | |||
| ::* That deleting a poll off a page, while not a specific violation of policy, is considered "aggressive" and the kind of action that "exacerbates the dispute." Though there was not a specific censure, the ArbCom disapproves of this kind of action, especially by an "experienced administrator." Admins are expected to do things to ''de''-escalate disputes, not intensify them. | |||
| ::* ArbCom has confirmed that polls may be used when appropriate to gauge opinion, such as "if substantial interest in the proposal developed and a significant number of users were engaged in the conversation." Which applies to us. | |||
| ''Probably'' not a series (dunno for sure) - ], ] | |||
| ::In other words: I think we should move forward with finalizing the wording on a poll. Having a poll with wording that is agreed-upon by all parties will help clarify the exact issue in dispute, and will allow all parties to offer their opinions in an equal setting. --] 07:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Having another poll would basically throw out the discussion. Continuing to suggest a poll at this point is simply ignoring everything everyone else has said until this point. You've been asked direct questions that you've responded to without actually answering the question. You spent so much time calling for a poll when people have requested that you actually talk about the naming convention. In my opinion that is more uncivil than name calling, because it causes frustration rather than resulting from frustration. Stop calling for a poll and talk about what matters. ] 08:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Probably a series - ], ], ] | |||
| :::Here, here! The poll has been done to death. Stop trying to convince us with a fake show of force, and convince us that ] episodes deserve an exception to established guidelines at both ] and ]. Give us an argument. Hell, give us anything besides "I think we should do a poll.". ''Why, Elonka, do you feel this one topic deserves to be treated differently?'' --]] 16:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| IDK - ], ], ], ] ] ] 18:25, 2 December 2024 (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: