Misplaced Pages

talk:Naming conventions (television) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TobyRush (talk | contribs) at 00:29, 31 October 2006 (→Further comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:29, 31 October 2006 by TobyRush (talk | contribs) (→Further comments)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archives of previous content

New perspective

There is a new discussion of the naming convention of TV shows at the disambiguation talk page. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Poll now available for Voting

A new draft poll is available for comment and revision. The poll will begin on January 24 and end February 15, 2006. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (television)/poll has begun and is ready for votes. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 05:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Do not begin a mass renaming

Despite the closure of the previous poll, this is still remains a proposed naming convention. Please do not begin renaming shows until this convention arrives at some sort of consensus. Many articles have remained at their title for years without dispute, please do not start changing them until discussions are complete. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-discussions or standards are never "complete". That being said, if there is an unusual case, bring it up here. -- Netoholic @ 21:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Unresolved issues

I still think that there are some unresolved issues in the naming convention that need to be dealt with. Issues which I have suggested in a follow up poll. As such, I do not think that this proposed policy is ready to be a guideline.

Unresolved issues

  • TV vs. television
  • Television movies
  • Show vs. program/me
  • TV in use with "game show"

While I do not own this article, I have put significant effort into making sure that the first poll has run smoothly, a process which I think has been usurped by an editor who has made controversial edits on this topic in the past. Because of this controversial past, I have put an emphasis on process to make sure that this issue is satisfactorily resolved without dispute, something at which it appears I have failed.

If you feel that these issues need further discussion, please leave suggestion and comments here. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

TV vs. television

The decision was split, but several people in the poll indicated willingness to side with "TV" just to get consensus and consistency. -- Netoholic @ 22:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

  • 14 - 12 is not a majority! Television should be included as an option. If the consensus (and not just two editors) suggest that they were willing to change I would accept this. There needs to be a follow poll or at least a discussion before it becomes standard. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 23:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • This precise issue is the root cause of many of the frustrations with regards to this page. Most articles today use TV, and even you said you'd change your vote to reach consensus. Don't object on principle. If we want a standard, we need to choose one option. My additions related to industry terminology includes use of (television), so now it's just about "TV series" vs. "television series" (.../movie/program) in programming articles. -- Netoholic @ 00:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not objecting to (television) for television related terminology. As I said at the time, it was a good suggestion, but I disagreed with you bypassing process. My objection is that the page as it stands is that it does not say "TV series" or "television series" (.../movie/program). That issue is unresolved and was not included in your updates from my suggested naming convention. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 04:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
        • It is not fully resolved, and so the current, long-standing, version of that convention has not been changed. I think you'll agree that some standard is better than none. This page aligns with, by any measure, what most articles presently adhere to. - Netoholic @ 06:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Current!? long-standing!? Your proposal was rejected, soundly a long time ago. It never stood on its own. It is not current. It is now in dispute! You are AGAIN trying to force it. There are many shows with television in the title. Respect the opinion of other editors who chose television in the poll and those who use it articles. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 13:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
            • I will not continue this thread if you continue to use ad hominem comments. It is unproductive. -- Netoholic @ 15:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
              • I am not making ad hominem attacks. My comments are based on your actions of trying to push this into a guideline that you approve before the discussion is complete. You have already begun renaming shows ], before the discussion was complete. The issue is not yet resolved and yet you continue to push your own interpretation. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Emotions aside, this is a difficult case. Voter overwhelmingly rejected a heterogenous solution (use either TV or Television, depending on what one feels like), but were split right down the middle on which it should be. At the end, one person changed his vote in order to get a consensus, giving "TV" a slight edge, and RR voiced a willingness to do so as well. I voted "television", but I would also be willing to switch for consensus sake. In addition, if a re-vote were held, my gut feeling is that some people would switch from "television" to "TV" simply because it was decided to use "television/TV program/series", and some people would think "television" looks better on its own, but "TV program" looks better as a grouping.

For these reasons, I think we should use "TV" as the standard, and only hold a re-vote if several people think it's important enough to do so. – Quadell 15:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. A straightforward convention is much preferred to a mix standard, but I don't think we should change just yet. Give time for other users to express their opinions either way. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I also agree with this. I did vote for "Television", but I would be happy to accept TV as standard. --Lox (t,c) 20:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I like TV (harder to misspell), and it is gratifying to see harmony arising here when the discussion started out with decidedly disparate opinions. Misplaced Pages is being well served. If "Television" had won, I would be just as happy, because of how the answer was reached. Chris the speller 23:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Television movies

"TV movie" is the more frequent usage by far. -- Netoholic @ 22:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Some movies (though rarely) are shown first on TV and then in the theatre. Often when I rent a DVD, I don't care where it was shown. I think a TV movie should simply be disambiguated with (film), just as a direct-to-video movie would be. If there's a TV movie and a theatre movie with the same title, I'd use the year to disambiguate. I don't see Title (TV film) or Title (TV movie) as necessary disambiguators at all. – Quadell 15:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I quite like this as I don't see any reason to disambiguate between a TV film or film. It also avoids the "TV Movie" and "TV Film" debate! --Lox (t,c) 20:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Several sources, including the venerable IMDB, treat TV movies as "TV" rather than "film". Take a look at this entry for Hostile Waters, for example. We should not decide naming convention based on solving the "TV movie" vs "TV film" question, but rather on common usage. Television movies are not films. -- Netoholic @ 21:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
There are many choices about how to disambiguate, do not appeal to authority. Besides, IMDB chooses to automatically disambiguate all movie productions for television by adding "(TV)", though the most common usage is as you say, TV movie. I would also argue that television movies are films. The method of release do not change it's status, see Film#Film_venues. Direct-to-video films are treated under the same convention, as I would imagine movies strictly released over the internet. The method of release for films outside of the standard Theater-->DVD-->TV is almost always covered in the title sentence of the article, see Hostile Waters (film). That common usage is not changing, simply the disambiguator. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I did not mention IMDB to appeal to authority (If I'd said "We must do this because that is how IMDB does it", you might have me). Instead, I cited it as on source which verifies my assertion that it is most common that the difference between TV movies and films is explicitely shown. Another such authority, in the U.S., would be the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences which does not allow films "which, in any version, receive their first public exhibition or distribution in any manner other than as a theatrical motion picture release" to be considered for the Academy Awards. Likewise, similar television bodies do not consider showings of theatrical releases to be considered for their awards. There is a divide in the culture between films and television movies, and that should be reflected in naming convention. I would have no trouble having an Oliver Twist (film) and an Oliver Twist (TV movie). The distinction is clear. -- Netoholic @ 23:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
You are creating a false divide. There are awards for Commonwealth (Man Booker Prize) and American books (National Book Award), they are both still books, despite having different cultures. It is not needed in the title since it will be mentioned in the title sentence. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 00:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I am fine with (film). I agree that television movies are films. Chris the speller 23:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Now that the proposed guidelines recommend "(film)", the last resort example under "Other methods" should be changed from "(1997 TV movie)" TO "(1997 film)", no? Chris the speller 18:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The reasoning behind leaving this as "TV movie" is based on several sources which make an explicit delineation between films and television movies. Until someone cites reliable sources which treat them the same, it is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages to counter this common usage. -- Netoholic @ 19:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

First please only change items relevant to the discussion. You reverted all my changes not just ones related to film. TV movies are a subset of films and not independent of the category. Film released under different mediums are treated different, as are many books in terms of awards and categorization. Nonfiction and fiction are still books as are paperbacks and hardcover. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Your book analogy is inaccurate and more akin to how we identify films as "action", "romance", etc. -- by the content. The medium is not about paperback vs. hardback -- film vs. TV movie is more akin to print vs. e-book. Please just cite sources that say that "TV movies are a subset of films" and that list them the same way. Using poor analogies just leads the discussion astray. I cannot find any source that handles films and TV movies the same. -- Netoholic @ 20:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Per the book analogy, there are separate awards given for nonfiction and fiction, and books released in paperback and hardcover are treated "differently" by the industry, and yet are still books. E-books and books share the same content but are presented in different format, but I don't think anyone would contest that a electronic book is not a book even if it is digital. Just like a DVD version of a film is still a film. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
All non-TV films are postfixed (film). I don't understand why you think TV films are "movies", but non-TV films are not. This would be confusing for readers, it seems to me, to look up title 1 (film) but title 1 (TV movie). The article you cite above, television movie, begins "A television movie (also known as a TV film. . ." and is in the category "Television films". Most TV films that have articles are linked to from lists of films; Alexander: The Other Side of Dawn (a TV film) is included in List of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender-related films, for example. Looking in this section, four people have voiced support for using the word "film" to disambiguate, whereas only one wants to use "movie". – Quadell 19:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not a verifiable source. Just because our editors added a TV movie to a list of films, or because they created a category named "Television films", does not say anything about how outside sources handle them. I find several very reputable sources that specifically delineate between TV movies and films (cinema), including every major awards show, IMDB, and several printed reference compendiums. These sources take great steps to ensure there is no crossover between films and TV movies. Please just cite some sources which list or treat TV movies the same as films. Trying to force "film" as the naming convention is wiki-prescription and not based on common usage or clear sources. -- Netoholic @ 19:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
If a producer creates a visual work of art, intended for the big screen, then afterward shows it on television before (or instead of) releasing it in theaters, what does the viewer care, especially after it's released on DVD? The distinction between putting (film) or (TV movie) after its title on Misplaced Pages may seem driven by pedantry or industry snobbery at that point. While other sources may primarily be edited by people in the industry who know and care which is which, Misplaced Pages is open to editing by anyone who can type, and I don't think any editor should try to make the naming conventions so esoteric that only he or she can "correctly" create new articles. Why shouldn't anyone who has the DVD in their player and the packaging in their hand be able to create an article or stub under a title that will be acceptable to all? Chris the speller 19:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Films produced for cinema and then shown on TV, are not TV movies. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be dictating usage -- we use whatever conventions that our primary sources use. At this point, every major source treats films completely separate and distinct from TV movies. Using "film" to disambiguate both goes completely against their conventions. No matter what convention we decide, people will use the wrong names occasionally. -- Netoholic @ 20:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I hear your arguments. I think I understand them. I'm just not convinced. And neither, it would appear, is anyone else. – Quadell 20:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea how that comment is supposed to help. -- Netoholic @ 20:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The MPAA, as well as other film rating systems, treat TV movies as films. Do a search for "Truman", "Duel" at . The Sopranos do not get a rating at the MPAA. In some cases, TV and movie ratings are clumped together (certificates), but content shown on TV and released on DVD are treated differently, compare and , and and . Amazon also doesn't specify a difference between television movies putting it into the "DVD" category. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The MPAA is a voluntary ratings board. Originally, it was used for theatrical releases, but expanded when home video retailers wanted to use the system. The television industry does not get MPAA ratings for TV movies. Some TV movies have gotten ratings only because they desired it for their home video/DVD release, but this is not universal. For example, Born Innocent is not rated, yet is on DVD. Amazon's handling is a complete non sequitor -- their DVD section groups anything that was released on DVD 'media including movies, TV movies, and other TV shows. Perhaps I need to be clearer... please find a film reference source that handles theatrical films and televisions movies the same way. Perhaps a film encyclopedia? Every source I've found makes a point to "disambiguate" theatrical films and television movies in their own way - either by leaving out TV movies or clearly marking them as such. -- Netoholic @ 22:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
See also reviews at rottentomatoes, where TV movies are reviewed by Film critics. I guess what I and perhaps others don't understand is why you are so unwilling to treat TV movies under the film umbrella simply for the naming convention. TV movies are different, yes they have a separate articles yes they are different beasts but they are similar enough to be treated as films. Many of the movies released HBO and the like are of "film" quality. TV movies will have their own category, specify that they were a TV movie in the title sentence, and be listed at List of TV movies all "clearly marking them as such". It would be more confusing and contradictory to do it the way you advocate. Why all the fuss? --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Show vs. program/me

The connotation of "show" implies anything broadcast (repeating series, movies, etc), whereas "program" is more clearly a one-time production or event. -- Netoholic @ 22:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I will address everything here because I think that the issues are related. News shows are not related to each other in terms of content or coverage. The episodes are presented independently of each other, i.e. they are not in a series. The format may be consistent between shows, but there is no larger context driving the show, each report is independent of each other. News program cover current events not create interconnected stories which are essential to a series. Similarly sketch comedy and variety shows are only loosely connected. There may be recurring characters but each of the sketches are not connected to the previous sketch.
I disagree that program/me or show implies a single non-episodic television - Television special usually covers that concept. Also see Category:Television programs, which covers most episodic television. Category:Television series by country shows that most country have organized series and program/me together. From what I have seen, show/programme is used fairly interchangably for episodic television, and still needs to be resolved, particularly for categories. For example Category:2000s TV shows in the United States Category:BBC television programmes.
I've tried to collect most of the shows that use program/me and show
The oldballs are the news programs and sketch comedies, everything else fits into a series or movie. Show and program/me were never used to disambiguate single shows. In such cases of non-episodic shows such as documentaries Category:Television documentaries other disambiguators were used.
There are some other difficult to classify shows, typically produced by PBS such as MotorWeek, This Week in Baseball, This Old House and Square One Victory Garden which only identify themselves as television program or a television show. I would consider these "magazine shows" or as educational shows, but could define them as TV series. Crossfire (TV series) - talk show or series? --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 04:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
In the world of one-time programs, there is likely very little naming conflict. "TV program" should be quite rare. In your list, I don't see any that are exceptions to the "TV series" basic rule. News shows and sketch comedy are produced by the same companies, often have the same on-air talent, and are periodically returning - they are rightly considered series. From Television program - "A program may be a one-off broadcast or, more usually, part of a periodically returning television series." I am completely comfortable if not every article fits neatly into the convention, either. I don't want us to complicate things just for a couple exceptions. -- Netoholic @ 06:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
You can see that people do not use program/me for one-off broadcasts. Why complicate the issue with AE/BE. Show does the job with the same and has the same context of "one-off broadcast" and episodic television. Furthermore it states in "A one-off broadcast may be called a "special."", this is a specific convention, not ambiguous like program/me.
News shows are not a series which "related set of things that occur one after the other (in a succession) or are otherwise connected one after the other (in a sequence)." They are covering news or more specifically current events. There is no sequence, each show is independent. News shows/soap operas "have daily or weekly episodes, don't go on hiatus, and are not often put into seasons/series." --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 12:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Updated 13:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps as a comprimise for new shows, sketch shows, magazine style shows and educational shows would use (TV show) since they are not a series. This would simplify the naming and use an commonly used disambiguator --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  • "TV show" should not be used because it is ambiguous -- it can apply to every type of programming. If I say "What time does that show come on?", am I talking about a news show, a TV movie, a series, a game show? -- Netoholic @ 15:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

After reading all these complications, I am more and more convinced that (TV show) would be the best disambiguator. Unfortunately, the community voted overwhelmingly to use TV program and TV series as well as show. So I guess we need to nail down when to use program, series, or show.

It would seem to me that "TV program" should be used only for shows that are clearly programs, and "TV series" should be used only for shows that are clearly series, and "TV show" should be used for shows that are not clearly series or programs. Any way we do it, we'll have to do lots of rds. – Quadell 16:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In most cases only (TV) and (television) is needed for disambiguation, but most people prefered to have something after it; series was a naturally choice. The problem is that not all productions fit neatly into the categories of series, game show and talk show. Show is most appropriate and only other option. This is not problematic because in all of the cases you are distinguishing a television product from something else, not a television show from another television show. I'm also not sure that program/me was overwhelmingly voted for. I would have supported show if I had chosen the bottom option. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I have looked over this several times and see that the easiest solution is to use TV series for shows that are not series. There are only a few that "don't fit the bill" and it's too confusing for to specify the difference. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Animated television series

Cartoon, TV series and animated series are common disambiguators. I think these should use "TV series" by default and animated series only when disambiguating from other shows. Cartoon should be depricated. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 04:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

i dont like animated series as the alternative, its a little ambiguous not to mention the actual page is animated television series. why not animated TV series it seems more consistent. Discordance 23:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Game shows

TV + "game show" feels extremely redundant, and the way things have srpung naturally, "game show" alone has been preferred. -- Netoholic @ 22:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

  • There are radio game shows, radio talk shows. This would keep it consistent with the naming convention. Plus if TV + something is redundant why do we need TV in front of "series" when (television) would do? --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 23:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Most radio game shows eventually transferred onto television, and so would be best handled together in one article - "TV game show" would be too limiting in that case. "Series" and "miniseries" can apply to other media, especially books and comic books. Those titles are more likely to overlap with TV shows, especially shows based off of books. In that case, the (book) and (TV series) are more likely to be separate articles. -- Netoholic @ 23:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
(game show) is fine. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 04:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I would use (game show), and only use (TV game show) if the article is specifically about the TV version and not the radio version. – Quadell 16:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

(game show) is a winner. Get it? Chris the speller 00:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If we are going to be putting (TV series) after the title of every tv programme on wikipedia id rather see (TV game show) used. Discordance 23:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Soap operas

While some of the articles at Category:Soap operas use (soap opera), just as many use (TV series). I think it should be clear that only (soap opera) if there is another television with the same name --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 23:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Disagree for the same reasons as (game show). Many soap operas started on radio, and so using "TV series" would not be right. Also, soap operas have daily or weekly episodes, don't go on hiatus, and are not often put into seasons/series. "Series", has a connotation of being a show that has a "yearly" cycle of episodes. -- Netoholic @ 23:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
SOME soaps started on radio but that doesn't mean that period can't be covered in the article. Not all relevant material about a person or topic needs to be covered in the title. Why should another classification be created when the category is available. Series also has other connotations which implies an ongoing product. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 23:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
At this moment, I'm unconvinced that Category:Soap operas is very good. Looking at some entries, it seems many articles don't fit that genre. Several included are merely female-oriented dramatic programs, and not soap operas. -- Netoholic @ 00:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Riverdale (TV series), Richmond Hill (TV series), Santa Barbara (TV series) Prisoner (TV series), Dynasty (TV series) Dallas (TV series) are not soap operas?
Also none of the shows using (soap opera) as a disambiguator has a history as a radio soap opera. The disambiguation is not very useful --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 00:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
"TV series" is fine... just watch out for articles that may include the history of a radio version. Be careful also of articles named with (soap opera) in Category:Soap operas which may not be television productions. -- Netoholic @ 00:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Boy, this is a really tough one. On the one hand, I'd be tempted to use (soap opera) as the disambiguator, so the article can be about "Days of our Lives", covering both the radio and TV incarnations. But it can be quite blurry what is and is not a soap. – Quadell 16:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's a little complicated with shows that have both a radio and television history, but all of those shows are the most common usage and would not need to be disambiguated. The transition between TV and radio may not be well covered, but I haven't seen any instances where (TV series) would be problematic for any soap. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 20:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Episode articles

Episode summaries should be combined onto a single page (List of Knight Rider episodes) or organized as a summary by season (The X-Files (season 1)).

I think that it is generally understood that "season" applies to US series, but other countries (especially the UK) use "series" instead.   — Lee J Haywood 22:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

My impression was that in the UK , season and series were interchangable when talking about a "year's worth" of episodes. Also, in the UK, that series can mean both the "year's worth" and the entire multi-year run. I don't want to step into a AE vs BE thing here, just find a way to be consistent without being confusing. -- Netoholic @ 22:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I suspect that it is the case that they are more interchangeable in the US than in the UK given that the use of "season" is a US invention – but having said that I use both and live in the UK. In the list of television series that include time travel I chose to use "series" due to the need for consistency, since I think it is a more obvious to everyone. I think that this convention should at least make some mention of the alternative, even if to say not to use it in the extreme case. Thanks.   — Lee J Haywood 20:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

season is understood but is never used for british tv shows and wiki etiquette is to use the english dialect from the country of origin. Also consensus was recently reached on Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Television episodes those guidelines probably need mentioning here. Discordance 21:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The section should probably read something like: "Whilst following the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Television episodes the following naming convention should be used:

  • (List of Knight Rider episodes) - for a list of all episodes with very brief summaries
  • (The X-Files (season 1)) - for extended plot summaries grouped by season or another appropiate division, eg. (The Bill (series 1)) for a UK programme."

No comments? Discordance 18:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agreed and changed the convention to accomodate your suggestion, but it looks like it was reverted in a larger disagreement. I will make the change again. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 20:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, now that I think about it, it don't think it should be mentioned, this article is focused on naming conventions for item related to television. It should only cover how they are named, not the content or other guidelines. Sorry, --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Red links on page

Can the example links be modified so that they are not red? It looks awful. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the technique makes the convention stand out amongst the other text more clearly. -- Netoholic @ 23:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
But no other naming convention uses that technique. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I Was Bold. -- Netoholic @ 23:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Being bold doesn't mean that it has to be unattractive. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 23:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't find it unattractive, but it's many times more clear and useful. -- Netoholic @ 23:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Then why do all other naming conventions follow another style if the convention is so important to see? --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 23:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write them. -- Netoholic @ 00:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Other conventions use examples to draw attention. Do you mind if I change it? --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 04:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The tt looks better than my font tags. Thanks. – Quadell 14:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ready for guideline?

I made some changes (hopefully improvements), moving the commonly used convention items closer to the top and removing some text and providing examples. I'm sure it can be improved, but I think it's ready to become a guideline and the fun fun process of moving articles can begin. Any other thoughts? --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's ready. – Quadell 20:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Giddyup! Chris the speller 01:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Fine here, although id like to see Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Television episodes mentioned in a see also section or something as its a related guideline. Discordance 03:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Episode naming

So, if I wanted to dab an episode name, what should it be? Foo (Bar episode) or Foo (Bar)? The page references the latter but makes no mention of the former. I prefer the former since it's very likely that it may conflict with something else in the TV series: Ensign Ro and Ensign Ro (TNG episode).

I guess I would like to see the former option added as an either/or to Foo (Bar). If not that then to use Foo (Bar episode) when "Foo" is ambiguous within "Bar". Comments? Cburnett 00:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles about series in different formats

As I've gone around renaming shows according to the naming convention, I've notice a few shows that do not necessarily fit into the convention (which may not be a bad thing). In most of these cases they are shows that appear in different formats which have been adapted from a different medium (radio, manga, play, films, film shorts, novels) to television. Usually the articles are not long enough to split into two separate articles or should be paired together. These article often appear in the TV categories, but may not necessarily belong. I have put these items down for future reference. For some of the articles like

I'd like to add The Junkies (TV series) to this list - it was a one-episode sitcom, distributed over the internet, and never broadcast on television as far as I am aware. Neither "TV series" or "film" sounds right to me - I originally created it at "sitcom", but that may not be the best title either. Suggestions? — sjorford (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
First, thanks for creating such an interesting little article, I love wikipedia because so many little thing like that are created! Do you think (pilot) or (TV pilot) might work better? The episode was created to attract attention to gain further distribution, either on television or on the internet (through funding). I generally dislike (sitcom) or (drama) and was part of the reason I advocated the naming convention, but it definitely doesn't fit into its purvue. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 14:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, "(pilot)" might work. — sjorford (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The Office (US) to The Office (US TV series)

from respective talk pages

You linked to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (television) as justification for your move. However that page only deals with naming when disambiguation needs to occur. From that page: "Remember the disambiguator should only be added if multiple articles would normally have the same name." In the case of The Office (US) no disambiguation was needed, The Office (US) is not the name of anything else. Tnikkel 00:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for writing, but if you read to the bottom of the convention you see that "Use the following when there are two or more television productions of the same name." The disambiguator you are referring to is "TV series" which should only be added when disambiguating from other articles. When disambiguating shows from other shows "TV series" is retained. This applies to year, country of origin, producing network and animated series. If you would like to discuss it further please leave a comment at the convention talk page. Thanks! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 00:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually the convention page doesn't make it clear if the "TV series" is retained or not, it just says that you add the country of origin and the example it gives happens to include "TV series". Tnikkel 00:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Did you overlook my response above? Or are you choosing not to respond? Tnikkel 21:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I am by no means ignoring your comment. I missed it when someone else had written after you, my apologies. But as far as the convention I don't think that it "happens" to include TV series. It was there deliberately to clarify TV shows from other TV shows just as the "TV series" is retained with year, country of origin and network. If you look at the film naming convention, when there are multiple films from the same year, even if they do not need to be disambiguated from anything else "film" is still retained, so should "TV series" or "game show". The same is true for albums, see Down to Earth. If you have a larger question with the convention, please leave a comment there. Thanks!

US vs U.S.

The top level MoS prefers U.S., should we nt follow that here? Rich Farmbrough 11:35 10 May 2006 (UTC).

I tend to agree with you. I checked the Talk archives, and couldn't find any discussion on this point, so I say we accept the "upper level" policy, and change this particular example on the conventions page. - The DJ 13:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I found policy that dictates differently for disambiguation articles. I therefore reverted the change and added the link to the policy in question. - The DJ 15:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Stub types

Don't know if anyone noticed, but there's a discussion over at WP:WSS/P about the naming and organization of television category stubs. Her Pegship 22:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out on this page as well. Let's hope more people take notice. I plan to copy the "template structure" for TV stubs to this page later on as well.. TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

How do I name this?

If I'm going to write an article on a Korean variety show, how would I name it (it's called "X-Man", so I need a descriptor after it)? It's not exactly a serial, but would X-Man (variety show) work? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SKS2K6 (talk • contribs) .

X-Man (variety show) seems good. There would likely be confusing with X-Man (TV show), so I would go with (variety show) instead. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Related discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines#Name suffix, about the best way to consistently title Lost episodes (such as to use a suffix of "(Lost)" or "(Lost episode)"). Interested editors are invited to participate, to ensure consensus. --Elonka 23:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Episode naming, again!

I'm a bit confused over episode naming. I have seen both Episode-name (Show-name) and Episode-name (Show-name episode) used. General naming convention is to describe WHAT the item is, not where it is from - for example, (actor) and (politician) would be preferred for diambiguating two names, and if there were more than one politician, then (Australian politician) and (Canadian politician) would be preferred. using (Australia) and (Canada) would be wrong using this method.

I would have expected television episodes naming conventions to be a subset of the general naming conventions - and as such use (Lost episode) and (Jericho episode) for example. I have seen a few articles using just (Lost) which is wrong - the word "Lost" by itself doesn't do anything to tell you what the article is about, unless you already know that it is an episode of the show. Looking deeper I have found that this is the recommended naming convention for WikiProject Television episodes!

Trying to find past discussion about this is tricky, I've found info scattered over WP:Naming conventions, WP:Naming conventions (television), WP:Disambiguation, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television episodes, and the associated talk pages. I'm not sure where I should bring it up, but the episode naming convention should be "(Show name episode)" - it is after all a part of Misplaced Pages and where possible different projects should not have different naming schemes.

Note: Whether or not episode article names should be pre-emptively disambiguated is another topic altogether! -- Chuq 02:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable rational to me, I agree. -- Ned Scott 03:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Requesting comments for Lost episodes

Requesting comments for Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines#Name suffix - a debate over the use of disambiguation titles for episode articles of a TV show when no disambiguation is needed. -- Ned Scott 21:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this is the same discussion as was already pointed to, two sections up. --Elonka 23:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Same discussion, but it was originally noted for (Lost) vs (Lost episode) instead of where the current discussion is at. -- Ned Scott 00:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek example

Since it's being discussed on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines I thought it would be good to note this here as well. Here is the reason the Star Trek "exception example" was removed from the guidelines:

To use a disambig title when it is not necessary, for style or consistency reasons seem to be against general naming conventions. For example, one should title the Lost episode "Fire + Water" as Fire + Water instead of Fire + Water (Lost), where "Fire + Water" doesn't exist as another article. Here are some discussions that seem to support this: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines#Name suffix, Talk:Fire + Water#Requested move, Talk:List of Torchwood episodes#Article names. One exception was given for this without explanation, Star Trek episodes.

I've been trying to find out how the Star Trek example got in the guideline in the first place, and here's the first edit I've seen it in. The talk page at that time did not have any mentioning of Star Trek, nor did the poll that was taken a few days before. I found two places in the talk archive where Star Trek is mentioned:

Had there been at least something that lead to this addition I would have likely discussed first before removing, but there was not. There is no major support for this, and it's very misleading. The inclusion of the Star Trek example is what mislead me to my own assumption that this was acceptable. If we have an exception in a guideline then the exception needs some explanation, some context. The Star Trek example has none, and its removal was appropriate. -- Ned Scott 00:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I oppose your removing the information from the guideline (especially while you were involved in an active controversy about this in another part of Misplaced Pages). The information was useful, to show that there are multiple ways that episode titles can be handled. The Star Trek exception clearly affects hundreds of articles, as can be seen at Category:Star Trek episodes. It's worth mentioning. --Elonka 02:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I originally removed it long before we were in a dispute. Being in dispute alone is not a reason to keep a bad note that conflicts with other guidelines on naming conventions. It clearly has affected a lot of articles, and because of it we have a lot of cleanup to do. It's best not to make the job any bigger. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
You removed it, without discussion, concurrent with the dispute at Talk:Fire + Water about a page move, even though that wording had been in place for months. Further, every time different wording was suggested, you simply reverted it without discussion. , and then in a display of profoundly bad faith, you then insisted that your version was "consensus", and that discussion was needed to restore the information that you had removed. .For the record, this is my current recommendation of what should (re)-added to the Guideline page, in the section under "Episode articles":

Certain shows such as Star Trek and Lost may use different formats. When in doubt, it is best to make new episode articles consistent with the practice that is already in existence for that program.

I would also point you to Misplaced Pages:Guidelines, which says, "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.". --Elonka 20:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

RfC Episode Article Naming conventions

I am starting this as there is already four discussions on this page regaurding this issue, also It has come up on Talk:Heroes (TV series) and Talk:Jericho (TV series) and though I'm not involved I understand from this page that the debate is also raging (poetic license) on Talk:Lost (TV series). I am going to try to detail the options as I see it and then give my recomendation.

Summary of the issue

Currently there is a bit of confusion since WP:D says that the first article with a given name should be just that name. However in specific to episodic television episode articles, WP:TV-NC says to reference the guidlines at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television episodes. Since the project guidlines aren't specific every one seems to be pushing for their own preffered version of NC. This RfC seeks to define a single NC for Television Episode articles.

-- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | Status:On 14:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Potential Guidelines

  1. Use the existing naming convention from WP:NC and WP:D ("First come first serve")
    • Pro: Complies with the current general guideline. The only exception to it has been TV episodes.
    • Pro: Doesn't clutter the article namespace with unnecessary parenthetical disambiguations
    • Pro: Doesn't confuse users who wonder what other things have this title because it has a parenthetical disambiguation
    • Pro: Doesn't muddy the semantics of the article namespace with arbitrary additional attributes for certain classes of articles
    • Pro: Makes Misplaced Pages more consistent overall by making articles comply with one guideline, not one guideline with exceptions.
    • Pro: Is easier to remember for people who don't frequently link to Star Trek episodes
    • Pro: Results in shortest average title length
    • Con: Lacks the perceived "Pros" of the below guidelines.
    • Con: Episode titles without a clarification can be non-obvious as to what they're referring to. i.e., "The Greater Good" is not about the concept or the idiom, but is simply an episode title.
    • Con: Episode titles are rarely used in day-to-day conversation.
    • Comment: Guidelines are not meant to be "in stone", and should allow for exceptions, per Misplaced Pages:Guidelines
  2. Articles should be named <EpTitle> (NameOfSeries)
    • Pro: All episodes have this at the end of the article name so you know if you append (NameOfSeries) and click Go you will get there.
      Comment: Assuming appropriate redirects with (NameOfSeries) exist for every article, this behavior is not an exclusive benefit of this proposal
    • Pro: Having each episode marked with its related show, makes things easier for Misplaced Pages editors who are vandal-tracking in their watchlists
      Comment: The "related changes" link from category pages provides this functionality regardless of article names
    • Pro: Categories such as Category:Lost episodes and Category:Star Trek episodes look cleaner and more professional when all episodes follow a similar naming system.
    • Con: Other listings of articles look messier and less professional when parenthetical disambiguations aren't actually disambiguating anything
    • Con: Requires piped links for nearly every link to an article, rather than only to those articles whose titles are ambiguous.
    • Cons: Slightly wordy, you will always have to append that suffix to the name whether linking to or searching for, though this is over come with a piped link. The truthest, simplest undisambiguated name will not be used as the article title and instead as a redirect, if anything. Is a confusing exception to the existing guideline for all other articles.
    • Con: Rather than just clarifying the general naming convention, directly contradicts it
    • Con: Clutters the article namespace with unnecessary parenthetical disambiguations
    • Con: Confuses users who wonder what other things have this title because it has a parenthetical disambiguation
    • Con: Muddies the semantics of the article namespace with arbitrary additional attributes for a certain class of articles
    • Con: Is hard to remember for people who don't frequently link to Star Trek episodes
    • Con: Results in longer average title length
    • Con: Makes Misplaced Pages less consistent overall by increasing the complexity of the article naming conventions
  3. Articles should be named <EpTitle> (NameOfSeries episode)
    • Pro: Same as above and now you know specifically that its an episode and not maybe a location, object or character.
    • Con: Other listings of articles look messier and less professional when parenthetical disambiguations aren't actually disambiguating anything
    • Con: Requires piped links for nearly every link to an article, rather than only to those articles whose titles are ambiguous.
    • Cons: Even more wordy than above. The truthest, simplest undisambiguated name will not be used as the article title and instead as a redirect, if anything. Is a confusing exception to the existing guideline for all other articles.
    • Con: Rather than just clarifying the general naming convention, directly contradicts it
    • Con: Clutters the article namespace with unnecessary parenthetical disambiguations
    • Con: Confuses users who wonder what other things have this title because it has a parenthetical disambiguation
    • Con: Muddies the semantics of the article namespace with arbitrary additional attributes for a certain class of articles
    • Con: Is hard to remember for people who don't frequently link to Star Trek episodes
    • Con: Results in longer average title length
    • Con: Makes Misplaced Pages less consistent overall by increasing the complexity of the article naming conventions

Poll

Add *'''Support''' --~~~~ to indicate which options you agree with.

Guideline I

Guideline II

Guideline III

Further comments

I guess now that I have summed up the issue I will note that the option that I prefer is the second as it's unifying, descriptive and not overly wordy.

Obviously this is not an exhaustive list of pros v cons but it should be enough to get an idea and debate the issue. I will be posting this to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Policies and hopefully we can come to a concensus and make a unifying standard.

-- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | Status:On 14:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There is also a discussion about this at Talk:The New and Improved Carl Morrissey, thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I've done what I can to clean it up. Let's hope something good comes out of this. Izzy Dot (talk | contribs) 19:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This RfC is a bit confusing. For one, the discussion over the Lost episodes is happening on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines and not the other Lost talk page. Also, on the Lost discussion we're mostly talking about the use of disambig titles ("Showtitle (Lost whatever)") when no disambig title is needed. However, the 3 "vote" options presented don't allow for someone to say if they prefer "(Show Name episode)" or "(Show Name)" without needless disambiguation. Can we change the wording on this and the options before people get too far into this so there's less confusion? Also, it'd be nice if we could transclude some of the comments from that Lost talk page to here, as I'd hate to bug everyone again for a second comment. -- Ned Scott 20:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point, Ned. I wonder if we actually need to take two votes here: one to determine whether episodes should always have the parenthetical disambiguation suffix or should only include when necessary, and one to determine whether that suffix should be "(ShowName)" or "(ShowName episode)" or something else.
Regarding the first point (whether to disambiguate always, or only when necessary): I would normally be quick to go with the universal standard, but the fact of the matter is that episode titles are actually pretty rarely used in day-to-day discussions. I mean, if I were to say to my co-worker, "Hey, did you see 'Static' last night?" he wouldn't know that I was referring to last night's episode of Cold Case. I agree that Misplaced Pages articles should be named with the simplest, clearest title possible, and that we should only add disambiguation when necessary. But "simplest and clearest" doesn't always mean "shortest." In this case, I think adding the disambiguation is actually simpler and clearer than not adding it.--TobyRush 20:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Not sure who added the previous comment, I'll dig through the history later and find it but I agree with your first point as I would most deffinately vote for either 2 or 3 before option one. And I do agree with Ned as well. The main reason I posted the discussion here was because it was spread across so many shows. I will through together a notice later tonight that we can throw up on talk pages to let people know that this discussion is here. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | Status:On 00:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
A lot of films aren't recognizable in the mainstream, but I don't think they all need to be appended with "(film)." I think if the current guideline is sufficient; if ambiguous, they should be appended with the showname in parentheses, otherwise they should not. Shannernanner 21:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I think using films is a bad analogy here as films are singular where as it's not uncommon for a tv series to have 100-200 episodes or more. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | Status:On 00:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I actually experienced this myself moments ago... Matthew referred to The New and Improved Carl Morrissey above and it wasn't until visiting the page that I realized it was even a television episode, let alone one from The 4400. And I was reading a comment about television episodes. Sure, a large part of that may be due to my own daftness... --TobyRush 20:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not real useful to have the same subject being discussed at multiple places. There's no way this "vote" can be considered binding unless people in the other discussions are notified as well. I only stumbled on this by looking at other people's contributions. That notwithstanding, can someone please explain this supposed watchlist benefit to number 2 above? Are there people that are watching pages but don't want to fix vandalism in them because they're not related to Lost?! Please tell me that's not the case. If an article is in your watchlist, you should look for vandalism in edits to that article, regardless of the article's subject - and certainly regardless of that article's naming convention! —Wknight94 (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's actually not a primary consideration, but for me, I do a lot of work on Misplaced Pages, and routinely have about 2,000 articles on my watchlist at any one time, even with constant pruning. If I have time, yes, it's nice to be able to go through and check the most recent change on every single article I'm watching. More often, however, I'm just on Misplaced Pages for a few minutes, so I like to focus on the Lost articles, since I'm very familiar with that subject matter right now. Also, to be honest, the changes to the Lost episode articles are more likely to need patrolling for vandalism or original research than many of the others on my list. However, I don't have every single episode title memorized, and many of the episode titles don't look like episode titles (like The Greater Good or Maternity Leave). So having the additional suffix makes them easier to spot in my watchlist. And again, it's not a major issue with me, but it is still something that's helpful, which is why I added it to the "Pro" section. :) --Elonka 23:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Just FYI, you can get a watchlist for just Lost episodes if you bookmark this link: . Nohat 23:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with you on this point as well -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | Status:On 00:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Preemptive disambiguation has always been and continues to be a bad idea. Article titles should consist only of the titles of articles. In some cases, this policy doesn't work because some things have the same title. In those cases, as a last resort, we disambiguate the title using a parenthetical disambiguation. Parenthetical disambiguations are bad thing, to be avoided unless absolutely necessary. We should not be implementing policies that change article titles to generic information containers that contain titles and any other random grab-bag of information, like the name of the series it is a part of, or whatever. It's a muddy semantic mess that would only cause worse semantic muddying elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Once we put "(Star Trek episode)" (or whatever) in the title of every Star Trek episode, why not put "(Star Trek character)" after every character or "(2005 novel)" after every novel written last year or "(person who graduated college)" in the title of every article about college graduates, and so on? Star Trek episodes are not special and there is no compelling reason why they should have special exemption to the general policy of only disambiguating when disambiguation is necessary. While it may provide a small benefit in remembering link names for those users who exclusively edit articles relating to Star Trek, for the rest of us, who are just as likely to link to a Star Trek episode as any other article, having a policy of preemptive disambiguation for Star Trek articles is just another dumb exception that has to be memorized and makes Misplaced Pages less consistent overall. Nohat 23:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, well stated. Shannernanner 23:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Imo it has evolved into more then being just "disambig." thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I completely disagree with you in this case. Normally yes preemtive disambig would not be advisable (i.e. 2005 novel, film, etc) but in this case i think the pro's far out weigh the cons. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | Status:On 00:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, are you saying that disambiguation isn't disambiguation?
I think that the summary doesn't quite do justice to the first option. The current guideline isn't "first come, first served"; it's "disambiguate only when necessary". Specifically, it's "disambiguate only when there would be confusion if you didn't." True, it's not readily apparent that The New and Improved Carl Morrissey is about an episode of The 4400; but then, it's not readily apparent that The Man in the Brown Suit is an Agatha Christie mystery — until you click on the link. We don't title that page The Man in the Brown Suit (novel), because there's nothing else that would claim that title. Similarly, unless there's another article that could be titled The New and Improved Carl Morrissey, we shouldn't title the article The New and Improved Carl Morrissey (The 4400 episode).
I'm also confused by the obsession that some editors have with "consistency". Why should we fetishize the names of articles? In any article related to the television series, an episode's name will be piped anyway. It's only in a category that people will see that some articles have the suffix and some do not. Do Category:First Doctor serials and the other daughter categories of Category:Doctor Who serials look less "professional" because the Doctor Who WikiProject follows standard Misplaced Pages practice? For that matter, does Category:Agatha Christie novels look less "professional" because some articles have the (novel) suffix and some do not? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, well stated, I agree. Shannernanner 00:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The point I was trying to make above is that televisions episodes are exceptional in that the episode titles are not usually known by anyone except avid fans of the series. I agree that it would be silly to use The Man in the Brown Suit (novel), because that book is generally referred to, and thought of, as "The Man in the Brown Suit," and not "Christie's 1924 novel" or "The one she wrote after Murder on the Links." TV episodes, on the other hand, are only known to most people as "last night's Heroes episode" or "the E.R. fifth season finale." I have become a pretty avid fan of Jericho, but I'd be hard pressed to give you the names of any of the episodes without looking at the episode list.
Because the most official name for a television episode is also the least-known and least-used, I think an exception to the Misplaced Pages standard is justified. --TobyRush 00:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you guys not pick two options? Seriously, it sets a bad example and it just attempt to have it "one way or the other". Should the two propositions just be merged? Izzy Dot (talk | contribs) 00:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Nohat, I am regarding your additions to the pros and cons above, but many of them seem (to me, anyway) to be somewhat redundant and some are a little flippant. I invite you to consolidate your arguments a little to more accurately represent the different sides of this issue. Thank you! --TobyRush 00:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)