| Revision as of 18:50, 13 September 2004 editMintguy (talk | contribs)11,899 editsm →Further discussion regarding this poll← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:00, 13 September 2004 edit undoMintguy (talk | contribs)11,899 edits simplify catergoriesNext edit → | ||
| Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
| *Disadvantages (please add) | *Disadvantages (please add) | ||
| ====3 |
====3: TV==== | ||
| With or without additional disambiguation as proposed below. | |||
| =====3a: TV===== | |||
| Example <nowiki> ] </nowiki> | Example <nowiki> ] </nowiki> | ||
| *Advantages: (please add) | *Advantages: (please add) | ||
| *Disadvantages (please add) | *Disadvantages (please add) | ||
| ==== |
====4: TV show ==== | ||
| Example <nowiki> ] </nowiki> | Example <nowiki> ] </nowiki> | ||
| *Advantages: (please add) | *Advantages: (please add) | ||
| *Disadvantages (please add) | *Disadvantages (please add) | ||
| ==== |
====5: TV program ] and TV programme ]===== | ||
| Example <nowiki> ] and ] </nowiki> | Example <nowiki> ] and ] </nowiki> | ||
| *Advantages: (please add) | *Advantages: (please add) | ||
| Line 89: | Line 86: | ||
| ** Some program(me)s are remade in the other locale, but with the same title. Which word form do they use? | ** Some program(me)s are remade in the other locale, but with the same title. Which word form do they use? | ||
| ===== |
=====6: TV ....'===== | ||
| I.e. Always using the word 'TV', but also using additional disambiguation to sub-categorize a particular entry, notwithstanding the above point about disambiguation vs. categorization. Examples include TV serial, TV mini-series, TV animated series etc. | I.e. Always using the word 'TV', but also using additional disambiguation to sub-categorize a particular entry, notwithstanding the above point about disambiguation vs. categorization. Examples include (TV serial), (TV mini-series), (TV animated series) etc. | ||
| ==== |
====7: television==== | ||
| Please add additional variants of proposal 3 here. | |||
| ====4 : television==== | |||
| With or without additional disambiguation as proposed below. | |||
| =====4a: television===== | |||
| Example <nowiki> ] </nowiki> | Example <nowiki> ] </nowiki> | ||
| *Advantages: (please add) | *Advantages: (please add) | ||
| *Disadvantages (please add) | *Disadvantages (please add) | ||
| ==== |
====8: television show==== | ||
| Example <nowiki> ] </nowiki> | Example <nowiki> ] </nowiki> | ||
| *Advantages: (please add) | *Advantages: (please add) | ||
| *Disadvantages (please add) | *Disadvantages (please add) | ||
| ==== |
====9: television program ] and television programme ]===== | ||
| Example <nowiki> ] and ] </nowiki> | Example <nowiki> ] and ] </nowiki> | ||
| *Advantages: (please add) | *Advantages: (please add) | ||
| *Disadvantages (please add) | *Disadvantages (please add) | ||
| ==== |
====10: television ....===== | ||
| I.e. Always using the word 'television', but also using additional disambiguation to sub-categorize a particular entry notwithstanding the above point about disambiguation vs. categorization. Examples include television serial, television mini-series, television animated series etc.. | I.e. Always using the word 'television', but also using additional disambiguation to sub-categorize a particular entry notwithstanding the above point about disambiguation vs. categorization. Examples include television serial, television mini-series, television animated series etc.. | ||
| ==== |
====11. ==== | ||
| Please add additional variants of proposal 4 here. | |||
| ====5. ==== | |||
| Please add additional suggestions that are not variants of the above suggestions here. | Please add additional suggestions that are not variants of the above suggestions here. | ||
| Line 129: | Line 117: | ||
| ====1:==== | ====1:==== | ||
| ====2:==== | ====2:==== | ||
| ==== |
====3:==== | ||
| ==== |
====4:==== | ||
| ==== |
====5:==== | ||
| ==== |
====6:==== | ||
| ==== |
====7:==== | ||
| ==== |
====8:==== | ||
| ==== |
====9:==== | ||
| ==== |
====10:==== | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
Revision as of 19:00, 13 September 2004
Archives of previous content
Another poll - Why?
One particular user, who has managed to gain something of a reputation for trying to enact unilateral decisions, has tried to usurp the consensus approach of joint decision-making that is usually employed on Misplaced Pages. The details in respect of this can be viewed in the history and archives of this page.
The poll that was formerly on this page, was instigated by that user, in order to endorse a policy written by that user, with a deadline set by that user, with a criterion of what constitutes a consensus defined by that user. Despite a large number of people opposed to the adoption of that policy without further discussion, that user decided to instigate the aforementioned poll. I am myself taking the unusual step of unilaterally declaring that the poll instigated by that user for this page is invalid. In its place I am instigating a new poll that will allow all views to be discussed, and voted on, as per normal procedure. I will be publicising this poll on the Village Pump and at Misplaced Pages:Current_surveys. If anyone would care to invite users who may have opinions on this matter to come to this page by any other means then please do so.
As part of the process of attempting to make this a fair procedure I will be contacting all those users who voted, or expressed an opinion on this page in all of its previous incarnations. i.e. the following users:
- User:Netoholic
- User:Zoney
- User:Gtrmp
- User:Pcb21
- User:Rossumcapek
- User:Lee J Haywood
- User:Arwel Parry
- User:Jooler
- User:Foolip
- User:Avaragado
- User:Arteitle
- User:Rlandmann
- User:Michael Snow
- User:Angela
- User:Mackerm
- User:TheCustomOfLife
- User:Proteus
- User:RickK
- User:Cfailde
- User:DJ Clayworth
- User:Paul August
- User:Eisnel
- User:Regulus
- User:Tarquin
If any of those users fail to respond on this page, I think we should assume that their previous vote (if they made one) stands, but in light of the new broader options, I think we should aloow everybody a chance to change their vote before assuming that their old vote holds.
For the moment I am not going to state a deadline, I believe that we should agree to a deadline through discussion and I would like to hear opinions of what people think that the deadline should be and what criteria should be used for accepting any particular proposal.
I am appealing to all users to behave with respect to the wishes of other users and to allow all users to express their opinions on the detailed proposals below. I am also appealing to all users to assist in the policing of this poll. If you feel that the poll below is an appropriate and fair method of achieving the goal of generating a naming convention for television programming articles, then please sign under approve below. If you feel that the current poll is not appropriate method of achieving the goal of this page then please sign under disapprove. If you vote 'disapprove' then please add your justification and your suggestions for alternative methods of gaining a consensus. Mintguy (T) 16:29, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Approve:
- Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:17, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
- zoney ▓ ▒ talk 17:52, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Arteitle 18:40, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Effective, if a tad confusing? Mike H 18:40, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
Disapprove:
- Netoholic @ 18:43, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC) -- The proposed poll makes no logical sense. A much better-worded and arranged poll exists at User:Gtrmp/TV draft poll. Oh yeah, and the Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive2 was improperly "called off" while still in progress.
Proposals
Firstly it should be pointed out that the standard convention for disambiguation is that disambiguation should ONLY be used when it is absolutely necessary. Thus when there is no possibility of confusion, such as with Coronation Street and Fawlty Towers for example, parenthesised disambiguation should not be used at all.
Users are invited to add advantages and disadvantages to each of the proposals and add additional options as the see fit, but please do not clutter this section with discussion, please keep discussion limited to the discussion section provided.
1 : Ad-hoc
Disambiguation formats should be decided on a case by case basis, with no standard convention. This is pretty much the situation we have at the moment. This would include (not withstanding the above note) things like ] or ], but these would live alongside things such as ] and ] etc..
- Advantages: (please add)
- It's an easy "policy" to follow.
- Disadvantages (please add)
- Article titles lose "guessability".
- Inconsistencies are annoying for editors and for readers.
2 : Categorization
I.e. all sit-coms requiring disambiguation should use parenthesised 'sit-com' or 'situation comedy' or whatever is decided by the community as appropriate and we should agree on standard classification for other types of programming e.g. documentary, current affairs drama etc.. This option would need further discussion as to what we should use for each category of programming, including whether the specific use of TV and television is necessary. It should be noted that it is currently Misplaced Pages policy that disambiguation SHOULD NOT be used for categorization, but solely for disambiguation.
- Advantages: (please add)
- Disadvantages (please add)
3: TV
Example ]
- Advantages: (please add)
- Disadvantages (please add)
4: TV show
Example ]
- Advantages: (please add)
- Disadvantages (please add)
5: TV program AE and TV programme BE=
Example ] and ]
- Advantages: (please add)
- Disadvantages (please add)
- Some program(me)s are remade in the other locale, but with the same title. Which word form do they use?
6: TV ....'
I.e. Always using the word 'TV', but also using additional disambiguation to sub-categorize a particular entry, notwithstanding the above point about disambiguation vs. categorization. Examples include (TV serial), (TV mini-series), (TV animated series) etc.
7: television
Example ]
- Advantages: (please add)
- Disadvantages (please add)
8: television show
Example ]
- Advantages: (please add)
- Disadvantages (please add)
9: television program AE and television programme BE=
Example ] and ]
- Advantages: (please add)
- Disadvantages (please add)
10: television ....=
I.e. Always using the word 'television', but also using additional disambiguation to sub-categorize a particular entry notwithstanding the above point about disambiguation vs. categorization. Examples include television serial, television mini-series, television animated series etc..
11.
Please add additional suggestions that are not variants of the above suggestions here.
Additional disambiguation
There are likely one or two cases where using one or other form of disambiguation suggested above will still lead to possible confusion between two or more articles and additional disambiguation will be required. Suggestions for proposed systems of additional disambiguation are welcomed here.
Voting
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
9:
10:
Further discussion regarding this poll
It looks to me like the previous poll was extended when it was at 4/7. That is not marginal. That is decisive rejection, from which no hope of consensus in favor will ever emerge, and that poll should have been terminated. Snowspinner 17:07, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
We ought to be careful in using the word "series" in television articles as the British seem to say that a television "programme" has a "series" each year. Here in the US we are of the opinion that a television "series" has a "season" each year. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:20, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think you'd need worry too much. 'Series' can comfortably mean either here (so yes, you can have series of series...) and 'season' also has common currency, maybe not so much with the general public, but certainly with anybody who has even a passing interest in television. It seems to be particularly used for series which have a large number of seasons, for example, the twenty-six individual production blocks of the original run of Doctor Who are almost exclusively referred to as 'seasons' by fans and chroniclers of that particular show. Angmering 17:27, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Personally, I would think that for purposes for clarity, it would be best to avoid naming conventions that use either US English or British English-specific spelling or terms. Is there any particular reason why it might be necessary to include such qualifiers as "program/programme" or "series/season"? --] 18:29, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It would only become necessary to use season/series or some other alternative in an article title if you wanted to have an article about a particular season/series of a programme. Disambiguation qualifiers do not need to be specific. They are not for classification or catergorization, they are only used when absolutely necessary to avoid confusion with similarly titled articles. Mintguy (T)