Talk:Whoami and Hello, Elliot

Title

Note that I titled the article by its common name, i.e., what reliable sources (see bibliography) call it most often. In this case, they're not calling it "Series Finale Parts 1 & 2" or "whoami and Hello, Elliot" but simply "the Mr. Robot finale". Please discuss here for consensus before unilaterally changing the title. czar 11:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

This article certainly matches an article such as Inhumans premiere, but that article only got there through a massive discussion and three page moves. This article should exist at whoami and Hello, Elliot, with the article title formatted with quotes in display, so the title shows as "whoami" and "Hello, Elliot" (minus the italics, that's my own formatting). -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Based on what sources? What's the purpose of titling it "whoami and Hello, Elliot" if no sources call it even a variant of that? czar 23:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Are the episodes titled "whoami" and "Hello, Elliot"? Yes. Thus, the article needs to be titled whoami and Hello, Elliot, as quote formatting is typically never included in a title, with {{DISPLAYTITLE}} adding the quotes as necessary, so the title is displayed as "whoami" and "Hello, Elliot". -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Those are their official titles, by which no one knows them. The sources refer to this episode almost exclusively as simply the "finale". That's the common name, which our policy prefers over official names. czar 00:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

by which no one knows them According to... who? You? You've already got consensus against you on the other episode's talk page concerning episode titles with myself, Drovethrughosts and Gonnym; the same argument applies here. You're going to have a gain a wider consensus for support for these "common names". -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Nice canvassing. I compiled the sources for this article and I'm telling you that it is far more commonly called the Mr. Robot finale than "Whoami and Hello, Elliot". Not sure why that's so hard to believe, but it's easy to verify. I'm reverting/contesting your edit per BRD to restore the original title. Please start a formal move discussion if you wish to change it. czar 05:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

And that is your opinion. The BRD edit was creating the article at the "finale" title against consensus. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The article's original title is the baseline, not a "bold" move, since it's impossible to "revert" the article's original title. Any subsequent move is "bold" per BRD. czar 07:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

czar, your insistence on creating and naming episodes with descriptive or made up names rather than the official title is both disregarding a community-wide naming convention guideline - WP:NCTV - and is INCONSISTENT with all other episode articles and is starting to be WP:DISRUPTIVE. --Gonnym (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Still not seeing where NCTV says that episodes must use the "official name", if you can point it out to me. If it isn't there and you plan to cite it as the guideline, I suggest you add that text so it can be formally challenged. WP:COMMONNAME is policy. czar 05:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

And so is WP:CONSENSUS, which is clearly against you, so now you are move warring, so it is you that is required to submit a formal RM. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

See above. Reverting to the baseline article title is standard BRD. Honestly, you should have known better with your extendedmover permissions. If a move will be controversial, I know that you know it requires formal consensus and a template to invite wider discussion, not simply pinging others, acting unilaterally, and justifying it retroactively. czar 07:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

It was a bold creation, and COMMONNAME states nothing about television episode titles. It does, however, state When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. You are very clearly ignoring this. Nevertheless, you are edit-warring by moving it back. I do know better, and I'm letting you know how it works. Your creation was controversial, against a widespread guideline where there is no precedence of going against it, and against a very clear consensus. Given that it is your initial title that has no support and is controversial, it is up to you to file an RM. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Except there is a single, obvious name, as I've already said in my explanation of the sources. To wit:

If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub. Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia.
— WP:TITLECHANGES

If you want to claim consensus, start a formal discussion and give your argument. As of now, I've (1) actually done the work of writing/expanding the article, (2) explained how sources are actually referring to the subject (i.e., its common name), (3) cited the letter of policy I am using for determining the article's title—policy that unambiguously applies to all of the encyclopedia, not just television episodes, (4) not received a citation when I've asked for where NCTV says otherwise. The burden of proof is not on me and I can't even start a requested move on your behalf as I can't cite a basis for your position. czar 11:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you, or do you not, recognize that a consensus has been formed against your personal naming schemes? -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Per MOS:TV: If an article does not already exist with the name of the television show, episode title, or character name for which you are trying to create an article, then simply use the name of the subject as the article title (e.g. Carnivàle, Pauline Fowler or "Cape Feare"). The episode titles are "whoami" and "Hello, Elliot" not "Mr. Robot finale". Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Alex, in the case of this article, where you have canvassed two editors and have cited no basis in policy for your position, I think outside voices are needed, hence why I've requested that you initiate a formal WP:RM if you want to move the page, as is standard procedure.

DTG, thanks for that quote, but that's not in NCTV, as has been repeatedly linked, and it doesn't say to prefer the episode's official title.

Just so I'm clear, do you all share the position that television episode articles must always be titled by their official names rather than by any other name by which they're commonly known? A yes/no would suffice and then I can take that to a wider forum for you. czar 04:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Your accusations of canvassing are baseless. Again, I ask, do you, or do you not, recognize that a consensus has been formed against your personal naming schemes, across both articles?? It's a simply yes/no question. Assuming by your do you all share the position comment, I'd say that's a yes, and thus the article can be moved per your own WP:TITLECHANGES quote. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I've been quite clear: No, I obviously contest that we have consensus and I've already given a reasoned, policy-backed rationale. re: baseless, this edit is the base; pinging editors to influence a discussion in a particular way is the definition of canvassing. I have nothing else to add here. In the face of reasoned disagreement (outlined above), requesting a WP:RM discussion to establish formal consensus is uncontroversial procedure so I don't understand the resistance. czar 02:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

If you contest that there is a consensus against you, then please cite editorial support for your edits. If you cannot, then a consensus exists against you, and per your WP:TITLECHANGES quote, the article is valid to be moved. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

That quote is very clear about the default title and the steps to establish consensus. This is going in circles. I'm happy to go source-by-source when you open a RM but, forgive me, I'm not going to respond to further requests to repeat myself. czar 03:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

It does not state that it is the only way to gain consensus; in fact, the quote states that the article should only reside at its original title if no consensus can be reached on what the title should be - that is most definitely not the case here. If you have decided to leave the discussion, then the consensus becomes solid as the remaining editors all support the move. Note that any attempts to revert the move would be considered edit-warring. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is based on strength of argument, not on headcount, and as the only one who cited policy, we have no consensus. I can't start a RM for you, but if you change the title with anything short of a formal RM consensus (which is both what the Title Changes policy requires and a reasonable request), expect said change to be reverted, citing said policy. Start a RM if you feel so strongly and defend your position with policy. czar 04:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

And you are the only one supporting your case; please state any editorial support you have. In your next reply, I guarantee that you will not be able to. As I've been told, policy is not absolute, so you cannot use that as a case; WP:IAR exists for a reason. Title Changes policy requires a consensus; that is what we have here, and consensus does not require unamity. You said you were leaving the discussion; please be consistent with your past replies, and consider this a warning if you continue to edit-war. I have my position defended by policy already: WP:CONSENSUS. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't have this page on my watch list so was surprised this is still going. How is this still an issue Czar? There are 3 editors here who are opposed to your title. en.wiki does not use descriptive titles for episodes. Seeing how we have over 10,600 episode articles that follow this naming convention, that in itself is the community's consensus. --Gonnym (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

These are all arguments you can make in a WP:RM, but starting an formal discussion will bring uninvolved editors, particularly those outside the WP:TV area to participate. This is a matter of whether local, unwritten precedent supersedes the quoted, WP-wide Article Titles policy. czar 02:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

After seeing the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Television episode official name superseding common name, another editor has also said to stick to the official titles in times of dispute. There is no editorial support for keeping this article where it is. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

That's a mischaracterization. You can keep repeating that there is no "editorial support" but I literally outlined the argument based on policy and sources above. Again, you're welcome to start a RM if you'd like to move the article. czar 00:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you've outlined based on your personal opinion. There is no support, but there is clear consensus against the current title. You went to a wider venue, and got literally the same reply you've gotten thrice here. I can just as easily cite WP:IAR and state that your "policies" do not apply here. After the article is moved to its location of consensus, you are more than welcome to start an RM yourself and actually gain a consensus for "Mr. Robot finale", or you can start a discussion at WT:TV and gain a consensus to not use official titles. Either way, you are one editor with no support for your position. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

We've already gone over how the only other participants were specifically canvassed here by you. And it's frankly alarming that you think WP:IAR is a better solution than the simple, formal move discussion I've requested since the beginning. I can't open that discussion on your behalf because my argument is against it. But I can open a different one:

WT:TV#RfC: Should episode article titles default to the broadcaster's official title? czar 01:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

They were discussing the same topic on the same series, so it's not canvassing. And you seem to have it wrong; this article needs to be moved to its correct location, then you need to file an RM to gain consensus for the "finale" title. Where it is currently located does not conform with any other widely-used example, nor is there any support for it at all. I'm happy to do the former part for you. Once the RFC is over, then you can have an even clearer view on whether or not your "finale" title is supported. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

When the RfC ends, yes, you will have a basis in writing for the unwritten precedent you've asserted and can revisit from there. I think my disagreement on your other points has already been talked to death. See you after the RfC. czar 02:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

See you at the RFC. And after I move this article based on the current support; I'll do that presently. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

So far, no further support at all for the "finale"/"common" title... -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Use of "official title" by reliable, secondary sources

Very disappointing and discourteous that you couldn't even wait for the RfC to end. There's no way I'm editing in this article space for a while, so wanted to cross-post my title research from the RfC for future editors:

Here is an accounting of the article's sources and how they refer to the episode:

No mention of "whoami" or "Hello, Elliot" titles: New York Times, CNN, TV Guide, Rolling Stone, Deadline, Entertainment Weekly, Showbuzz Daily, TVLine, Paste, Complex, Bustle, Engadget

Single mention of "whoami" or "Hello, Elliot" titles: IGN, Hollywood Reporter, Vulture (not in prose, in headline but not even invoked as the title), AV Club (not in prose, only in callout), Vox (not in prose, only in URL slug)

All sources introduce and repeatedly refer to the episodes as "the finale" and many refer to them as "S4 E12"/13.

There is no reasonably way to conclude that the broadcaster's official title is the "common name" for this episode/topic. There should be no reason why a reader would expect to find the article about the finale at "whoami" and "Hello, Elliot".
— Special:PermanentLink/937582323

Take care. czar 23:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Czar, you have absolutely no editorial support for your position of using the common name. The consensus is clear: stop beating a dead horse. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

"whoami" and "Hello, Elliot" are also present at NBC, iTunes, Vudu, Google Play, and online guides such as Zap2it and Gracenote. The reason why most of those other sources don't mention the official titles is because the official titles were not known until after the episodes were broadcast; those articles were written without that knowledge. Per WP:COMMONNAME, "There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus" – that is what has happened as there is a clear consensus to use the official titles, which is in line with the Consistency characteristic from COMMONNAME, as literally 99.9% of TV articles are named after the episode title, with the exception of that Inhumans episode I believe. "There should be no reason why a reader would expect to find the article about the finale at whoami and Hello, Elliot" – that's an assumption and an odd one when again, literally every episode article is named after its title. Redirects exists, one can find it by searching for "Mr. Robot finale" if you're that concerned. You could also create a "Series Finale (Mr. Robot)" redirect as well. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)