| Revision as of 13:27, 24 September 2006 editTariqabjotu (talk | contribs)Administrators36,354 edits closed move request← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:32, 10 October 2006 edit undoElonka (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators70,958 edits +bannersNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Lost/Banner}} | {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Lost/Banner}}{{talkheader}} | ||
| __TOC__ | |||
| <div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:polltop --> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the {{{type|proposal}}}. <font color="red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. '' | |||
| {{{result|The result of the debate was}}} '''no consensus'''. -- ''']''' 13:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Requested move== | |||
| I recommend that this article be moved to the title of "Fire + Water (Lost)" in order to make it consistent with the other episode articles in ]. --] | |||
| ===Survey=== | |||
| *'''Oppose''' This is unnecessary disambiguation. Since no other article would reasonably be titled "Fire + Water", it should stay where it is. -]·]·]·] 22:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' (as nominator) One of the reasons that it would be helpful, is for those editors who are routinely scanning the ''Lost'' articles for fancruft/vandalism. Some have expressed concerns that it's difficult to maintain the large quantity of articles in their watchlist. However, if every episode clearly says "(Lost)" in the title, that makes them easier to spot. Another reason is that episodes have a great deal of crossover, so are linked between each other. To have some episodes ''with'' the suffix, and some without, can make linking occasionally more difficult, as it's necessary to manually check the episode to see which kind it is. Having all of them with the same ending, makes linking (and scanning for typos and opportunities to disambiguate) much easier. --] 23:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' In the interest of uniformity among titles, the move should me made. - ] → ]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 02:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Uniformity has not been held up as a general principle in support of disambiguation tags, when they are not necessary. There is nothing to disambiguate, so dismabiguation is strictly unnecessary. Convenience to editors is also not a valid rationale. We are to make things easy for our readers, not our editors. ] 01:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' ] would transparently redirect to ], so readers would not be confused. It is not yet a disambiguation, it is merely internal housekeeping which is of no real consequence to readers, though it will locate the article in a permanent home so it won't need to be moved if disambiguation eventually becomes necessary. It hardly seems beyond imagining that someone at some point might connect two ]s with an add sign and use it as the name for something else. -] 13:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Oppose''': I don't think most of the articles in that category should have "(Lost)" after them. I'm tempted to start going through undoing those unnecessarily disambiguated titles. —] (]) 17:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' for uniformity and tidyness, all episodes should disambiguate from real life. <font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/] ] ]</font> 21:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Support''' consistency is considered an acceptable reason for the article title, Dab issues aside, per ]. -- ] 04:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)</s> | |||
| **Untrue - see discussion below. —] (]) 11:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***No, it's true, see discussion below. -- ] 17:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I agree with ]. --] 04:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Again, according to ] the naming convention doesn't have to be related to ] pages. This is a naming convention, not a dab issue. -- ] 06:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Untrue - see discussion below. —] (]) 11:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ****No, it's true, and I can reply to more than one spot too! -- ] 17:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *****Yes, clearly you can - you're the originator of replying up here. —] (]) 18:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Abstain'''- I don't have a preference, because I don't think it matters that much. I think that 95% of the people who go here will go to ] and click on the link, in which case it doesn't matter what the article is called. Of the 5% that don't, I really don't think they're more likely to search for "Fire + Water" than "Fire + Water (Lost)" or vice versa. Plus, we already have a redirect, so it wouldn't matter which one they search for anyway. Don't get me wrong: I'm really happy that so many people care about this page. But I think our time could be better spent improving the article than debating what to name it. It's not like people are going to think the article is about something else if we add or don't add a "(Lost)" at the end. --] 15:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I am perplexed, since you were one of the individuals who brought up the concern about how maintenance became difficult with a large number of articles in your watchlist. Don't you agree that it would be easier to spot this article as part of the ''Lost'' set of articles, if it has "(Lost)" appended to the name? --] 22:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::How is this a benefit to readers? See my zillionth comment below... —] (]) 19:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, I don't think that it will be any easier to spot. I don't think it matters at all for spotting purposes. I guess it's just a difference in opinion. --] 20:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion=== | |||
| The only guideline that I know of that pertains to this move request is ] and it says this move request is wrong. This is also not standard among television episodes - see ], ], ], and any of the subcategories under ] — none of them employ the blanket disambiguation convention being attempted here. —] (]) 23:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I'm not sure that ] is the only thing to apply in this case, as this particular situation is a case of making a set of articles in a similar category, have a consistent titling scheme. I also see it falling under ], in making articles easier to link to. There's also precedent for this style within television episodes. For example, according to ], it is recommended that Star Trek episodes are always to include the series name, even if not absolutely required for disambiguation. --] 23:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::At issue is a word in parentheses after the actual name of the subject. That's disambiguation. In the Star Trek example, you've found the ''only'' exception to the rule that is plainly stated in the same section that you refer to. If anything, you made my argument for me. And I don't see how adding something that isn't part of the subject's name can make it easier to link to. —] (]) 00:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Because of the great interconnectivity between various ''Lost'' episodes, it is routine for any one article to link to several different episodes. It is near impossible for any one person to remember which episodes would require the (Lost) suffix, and which ones didn't, and it would be tedious to have to manually check each one to see which version of the titling scheme it used. Far better is to come up with a consistent method of titling, and stick with that. --] 00:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You don't need to remember anything - that's what ] is for. If you'd like to make it even easier and don't mind redirects, have a redirect for each episode with the (Lost) suffix but I don't see any reason here to go against the guideline at ]. I contribute a lot in sports and run into lots of ]s and ]es and ]s - that doesn't mean I should add (baseball player) to every biographical baseball article in the system. —] (]) 01:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I thought I'd point out that we do have a guideline page about this, ]. "''Where an article is created about a single episode, add the series name in parentheses if there are other articles by the same name, e.g. Bart the Genius, but The Sting (Futurama). For Star Trek episodes, always add the series name.''" | |||
| Both styles are considered acceptable by this guideline, meaning that you can use (Lost) for disambig ''or'' simply for article consistency. We'd be adding (Lost) not because of a disambig, but for style and consistency reasons. -- ] 04:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :That paragraph doesn't use the words "style" or "consistency" at all! Otherwise, you point out my argument perfcetly in the clause, "''if there are other articles by the same name''". In this case, there are no other articles by the same name so it falls into the same bucket as the "Bart the Genius" part of the example. That's standard disambiguation. I see nothing in that paragraph saying this is acceptable for style reasons, except in the Star Trek case. —] (]) 11:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::"''For Star Trek episodes, always add the series name.''" That's an example of using constancy as the main reason for the sake of style. Both styles are considered acceptable. People should not object based on ] alone, as DAB is '''not''' the only reason we put something like (Lost) in an article title. -- ] 17:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So you see one noted exception to a rule and you interpret that to mean there is no rule in the first place?! There is no verbiage there saying, "Some exceptions are made to the episode naming guideline such as Star Trek...", let alone, "Star Trek is different so feel free to make anything you want different". It clearly notes Star Trek as ''the'' exception. —] (]) 18:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::<personal attack removed> It's one '''example''' where they did that an no one had any major issue with it. It was a style choice where people said "no big deal". Did I say that Star Trek can suddenly make exceptions? No, I didn't, so don't you dare put words in my mouth or twist them around. This is not a conflict of "rules", these are guidelines where some examples are used, because not every situation is the same, and there's usually more than one acceptable way to do something, as long as there is a logical reason behind it. -- ] 22:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::We're not communicating well. I didn't say that you said that "Star Trek can suddenly make exceptions" so I don't know what you mean. It sounds to me like you are saying an exception has been made for Star Trek and, therefore, making an exception here is in line with ]. Am I wrong? You said "Both styles are considered acceptable" and I don't read that anywhere except in the single case of Star Trek. You also said "DAB is '''not''' the only reason we put something like (Lost) in an article title" and I say the only other reason I've found is if your article happens to be a Star Trek episode article. I'm not sure what has gotten you so worked up. —] (]) 23:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Annwer me this: Why would anyone want to have an odd article that doesnt fall into line with the rest, i'm thinking some ]. <font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/] ] ]</font> 11:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Again, that's addressed in ]. The reason this one doesn't currently fall in line with the others in this category is that ''many of those others'' had no business being tagged with "(Lost)" in the first place, i.e. they don't follow ] or ]. Unless someone can give a good reason why episodes for this series are especially different than others series whose episodes do follow ], I'm planning on going through several other Lost episodes and proposing the "(Lost)" be removed from them. —] (]) 12:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And now I noticed that the only reason this one is now inconsistent is because other similar articles that didn't need (Lost) were recently renamed to have the (Lost) on them. ] (] • ]) moved 15 of them just eight days ago so it's not like this one has been sitting outside of some longstanding convention. —] (]) 14:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I moved the few that didn't have the suffix, so that they would be consistent with the majority that ''did'' have the suffix. This is part of a larger effort to better organize and coordinate the ''Lost'' articles (see ]). To my knowledge, none of the other moves were protested, and the only one that I could not accomplish myself was this one, at ], because there was already a redirect page in the destination location, which therefore required a formal move request to get an admin to take care of things. This is a simple administrative move to allow for a consistent titling scheme in a specific subject area, just like many other places around Misplaced Pages (see: ]), not a massive policy-changing situation. I'm bewildered why there's so much drama involved (pardon the pun!). --] 18:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There isn't drama except inasmuch as I don't see a need for this particular TV series to have a naming convention that makes every article look like it has a disambiguated title. The only reasons I've heard so far are: | |||
| ::::::# "to be like the rest of the articles" when, it turns out 15 of them were just recently moved to this supposed convention. | |||
| ::::::# "because any exception is allowed" when, it turns out, people are reading the single stated exception to be an invitation to use any convention they want | |||
| ::::::# "because it would be easier for editors to write articles because this series in particular has a lot of links to similar articles" which sounds like a case of laziness at the expense of unconventionally named titles for readers. My biggest objection is that the titling convention you're looking for is already used, i.e. ending a title with a word in parentheses is supposed to be for disambiguation. —] (]) 18:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have moved all the unambiguous titles back to not have the disambiguation parentheses. They are not ambiguous, and so ''ipso facto'' '''do not need disambiguation tags'''. WikiProjects are '''''not''''' free to decide on whatever naming conventions they want, '''''especially''''' if those naming conventions contravene already-established project-wide naming conventions. In the future, it is advisable for those involved in WikiProjects to ensure that whatever standards and practices they decide on are not contradictory to already-established project-wide conventions and policies. ] 21:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Go get 'em, killer! Now you need to fix all the double redirects. :) —] (]) 22:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::], we're in the middle of discussing this. The naming style for the episodes, to include (Lost) when there is no disambig issue, '''is not in conflict with our naming conventions'''. Not every use of parentheses is a disambiguation use, but rather it is an attempt to use a descriptive title, which '''IS''' apart of WP:NC. There's no conflict. -- ] 22:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::In the main article namespace, any use of a postfixed parenthesized phrase that is not a disambiguation use is not a valid use of disambiguation tags. There are a few ''exceptional'' cases of "pre-emptive" disambiguation, but there is no general policy to use pre-emptive disambiguation whenever a group of editors wants to. There do not appear to be any extenuating circumstance with the titles of ''Lost'' episodes, so I can't really see that there is any policy which would support polluting the article title namespace with unnecessary disambiguation tags. ] 23:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I must apologies for some of my harsh comments and getting so wrapped up into this. I got fired up over a small issue that, when I look at it, doesn't even matter much. Parentheses that aren't being used for disambig are not a valid use for disambig... well, yeah, how could they be a valid use if they're not being used ''for that reason''. I'm under the assumption that all ''postfixed parenthesized phrases'' are not reserved for disambiguation use only. Are they reserved for disambig use only? I don't know if this is stated somewhere or is just a general assumption that I was oblivious to? -- ] 05:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Postfixed parenthesized phrases are in fact reserved for disambiguation use only, unless they are somehow part of the name of something like ]. In particular, there is no general rule that they can be used for "tagging" articles as belonging to some other set of articles. That is what categories are for. As I said before, there are a few ''exceptional'' cases where disambiguation is done "pre-emptively"; that is, whether or not the title is actually ambiguous, but there is no general agreement that such exceptional cases can be applied elsewhere without a strong reason. I personally don't think even the exceptions to the rule are a particularly good idea, but I especially don't think there is any strong argument for doing it for ''Lost'' episodes. The argument for "consistency" is just flawed. Sure, all articles on ''Lost'' episodes would be consistent, but they would be inconsistent with every other TV show, and with the entire rest of the encyclopedia. ] 06:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Here's more evidence. Look at ] which says, "If there is no disambiguation, the name of the article should be the episode title written with the corresponding capital letters" where '''the example is from Lost'''! How much more clear can it be - the recent mass move actually turned the links in the television episode project itself into redirects. Come on... —] (]) 10:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I still have yet to find where it says that postfixed parenthesized phrases are reserved for disambiguation use only, as nothing (even in WP:DAB) actually says that. Other than a nonexistent guideline, I still don't see the a major reason behind the strong objection to a naming convention as this. That being said, I've let that become my focus and lost sight of the simple fact that there's also no major reason to make such a move when it really is unneeded. In other words, it could go either way in my mind but I got too worked up in the minor details. I apologies again, and now see and agree with the point to not move unneeded articles to XXXX (Lost) type names. -- ] 05:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::There is no policy that says that postfixed parenthesized phrases are reserved for disambiguation use only. The naming convention is just that the title of an articles should be the title of what the article is about. In the event of ambiguous titles, there is an additional convention that a disambiguating term can be placed in parentheses after the title. There is no convention anywhere that permits the inclusion of anything else in article titles, including postfixed parenthesized phrases that look like disambiguation phrases but in fact are not because there is nothing to disambiguate. Such a convention would contravene the core naming convention; that is, that articles should be the title of what the article is about. ] 21:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: There is actually plenty of precedent for consistent titling systems on Misplaced Pages. For example, look at ], which sets out specific formats and suffixes for various royals. Someone named "Jack Sprat" is supposed to be listed as "Jack Sprat III of Middleton", etc. Other examples can be drawn from geographical designations, and other areas where titles in a specific subject field are requested to be in a similar format to those of others in the same field. For example, whether an article should be "County of XXXX" or "XXXX County". Misplaced Pages articles look better when they follow a consistent format for a given subject area. --] 22:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::This isn't about looking good, it's about being easy to use for readers, esp. those inexperienced with Misplaced Pages. —] (]) 00:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Also note that the naming conventions cited have to do with different ways of expressing the title of something. In this case, however, the string "(Lost)" is not part of the title of at all, but is instead an ancillary piece of information. The naming conventions do not advocate the inclusion of ancillary information in article titles by default. ] 08:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: Generally true - and well said. —] (]) 11:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: And, as has been said before, there ''is'' precedent for appending a parenthetical after a television episode title, as is done with the ''Star Trek'' episodes. Though it might be worth discussing whether or not the ''Lost'' episodes should end with "(Lost)" or "(Lost episode)" to be consistent with the Star Trek format. --] 17:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Read above for my response to the idea of a single exception being perceived as a precedent. —] (]) 18:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::It's not a single exception, it's a repeated practice. Examine all of the subcategories at ] and you'll see that it's done hundreds of times. I've also routinely found other shows which use similar formats, such as for ''Twilight Zone'' episodes. Using this kind of system makes things ''less'' confusing, not more confusing. Why are you so convinced that it's a bad thing? --] 19:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Among other things, because it's non-standard to the whole rest of Misplaced Pages. Until you pointed out the Star Trek exception, I had never seen an article title w/parens which was not a disambiguation. It's just pointless. The only benefit I see is that categories look more uniform and editors don't have to look up whether the title needed disambiguation. Neither of those are benefits to the reader at all - and let's not forget that the readers are the ones we're supposed to be editing for. And the second benefit can be worked around by including disambiguated redirects. —] (]) 19:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color="red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:pollbottom --> | |||
Revision as of 05:32, 10 October 2006
Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Lost/Banner
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fire + Water (Lost) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |